ZUbe  Eartb 

Stance  3faet 

A  Lecture  by 
PROFESSOR   C.  SCHOEPFFER. 

Translated  for  and  Edited  by 
J.  WATTS   DE    PEYSTER. 

With  Notes  and  a  Supplement  by 
FRANK   ALLABEN. 


'  He  founded  the  Earth  upon  her  bases  that  it  should  not  be  moved  forever. 
Psalm  civ.  5  ;  A.  V.  &  R.  V.,  both,  margin. 


NEW  YORK  : 

CHARLES  H.  LUDWIG,  PRINTER,  90  WALKER  STREET. 
1900. 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

We  conclude  this  interesting  discussion  by  citing  two  authorities.  The  nature 
of  the  "  proof  "  we  have  of  Newton's  law  has  been  stated  as  follows  by  Prof.  Henry 
A.  Rowland,  in  his  remarkable  address  as  President  of  the  Physical  Society  of 
America,  on  "The  Highest  Aim  of  the  Physicist,"  read  at  the  meeting  of  that 
society  in  New  York,  October  28,  189!»,  and  printed  in  the  American  Journal  of 
Science,  for  December,  1W.> : 

"  Newton  and  the  great  array  of  astronomers  who  have  succeeded  him  have 
proved  that,  within  planetary  distances,  matter  attracts  all  others  with  a  force 
varying  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance.  But  what  sort  of  proof  have  we 
of  this  law  ?  It  is  derived  from  astronomical  observations  on  the  planetary  orbits. 
It  agrees  very  well  within  these  immense  spaces  ;  but  where  is  the  evidence  that 
the  law  holds  for  smaller  distances?  We  measure  the  lunar  distance  and  the  size 
of  the  earth  and  compare  the  force  at  that  distance  with  the  force  of  gravitation 
on  the  earth's  surface.  But  to  do  this  we  must  compare  the  matter  in  the  earth 
with  that  in  the  sun.  This  we  can  only  do  by  assuming  the  law  to  be  proved. 
Again,  in  descending  from  the  earth's  gravitation  to  that  of  two  small  bodies,  as 
in  the  Cavendish  experiment,  we  assume  the  law  to  hold  and  deduce  the  mass  of 
the  earth  in  terms  of  our  unit  of  mass.  Hence,  when  we  say  that  the  mass  of  the 
earth  is  five  and  one-half  times  that  of  an  equal  volume  of  water  we  assume  the 
law  of  gravitation  to  be  that  of  Newton.  Thus  a  proof  of  the  law  from  plane- 
tary down  to  terrestrial  distances  is  physically  impossible. 

"Again,  that  portion  of  the  law  which  says  that  gravitational  attraction  is 
proportional  to  the  quantity  of  matter,  which  is  the  same  as  saying  that  the 
attraction  of  one  body  by  another  is  not  affected  by  the  presence  of  a  third — the 
feeble  proof  that  we  give  by  weighing  bodies  in  a  balance  in  different  positions 
with  respect  to  each  other  cannot  be  accepted  on  a  larger  scale.  When  we  can 
tear  the  sun  into  two  portions  and  prove  that  either  of  the  two  halves  attracts 
half  as  much  as  the  whole,  then  we  shall  have  a  proof  worth  mentioning. 

"Then  as  to  the  relation  of  gravitation  and  time  what  can  we  say?  Can  we 
for  a  moment  suppose  that  two  bodies  moving  through  space  with  great  velocities 
have  their  gravitation  unaltered  »  I  think  not.  Neither  can  we  accept  Laplace's 
proof  that  the  force  of  gravitation  acts  instantaneously  through  space,  for  we 
can  readily  imagine  some  compensating  features  unthought  of  by  Laplace. 

"  How  little  we  know  then  of  this  law  which  has  been  under  observation  for 
two  hundred  years  !" 

We  may  also  cite  Professor  Rowland's  caution  against  the  supposition  that 
ability  to  work  out  a  mathematical  theory  for  an  hypothesis  adds  a  single  grain  of 
real  proof  to  that  obtainable  for  the  hypothesis  from  experimental  observations 
of  nature  alone.  On  this  point  he  says,  in  the  above  address  : 

"  A  mathematical  investigation  always  obeys  the  law  of  the  conservation  of 
knowledge  ;  we  never  get  out  more  from  it  than  we  put  in.  The  knowledge  may 
be  changed  in  form,  it  may  be  clearer  and  more  exactly  stated,  but  the  total 
amount  of  the  knowledge  of  nature  given  out  by  the  investigation  is  the  same  as 
we  started  with." 

It  is  not  generally  known  that  the  great  Danish  astronomer,  Tycho  Brahe, 
and  not  Copernicus,  Kepler  or  Newton,  was  the  pioneer  of  the  true  scientific 
method  in  astronomical  research,  which  observes  Nature  in  order  to  understand 
her  laws,  instead  of  seeking  to  force  her  phenomena  to  square  with  preconceived 
theories.  The  contributions  to  astronomical  science  of  this  "  father  of  modern 
astronomy,"  as  he  was  in  truth,  are  briefly  recounted  by  the  late  Prof.  Richard 
A.  Proctor,  in  his  treatise  on  "  Astronomy,"  which  occupies  some  eighty  pages  of 
the  "  Encyclopedia  Britannica,"  Ninth  Edition  (Vol.  II.,  pp.  744-833).  The  follow- 
ing is  taken  from  page  752  of  that  article  : 

"Tycho  Brahe  stands  next  in' chronological  order  on  the  roll  of  those  who 
have  contributed  to  the  progress  of  astronomy.  As  an  indefatigable  and  skillful 
observer,  he  is  justly  considered  as  far  superior  to  any  astronomer  who  had  pre- 
ceded him  since  the  revival  of  the  science  in  Europe.  His  ample  fortune  gave 
him  the  means  of  procuring  the  best  instruments  which  the  age  could  produce  ; 
and  by  his  ingenuity  and  persevering  application,  he  was  admirably  qualified  to 


THE 

EARTH  STANDS  FAST: 

H  %ecture 

DELIVERED    BY 

PROFESSOR  C.  SCHOEPPFER, 

Seventh  Edition,  published  in  Berlin,  in  1868. 

TRANSLATED  FOR  AND  EDITED  BY 

J.  WATTS  DE  PEYSTER, 

BRIGADIER-GENERAL  AND  BREVET  MAJOR-GENERAL, 
M.  A.,  LITT.  D.,  PH.  D.,  LL.  D. 


'•He  hath  made  the  round  world  so  sure  that  it  cannot  be  moved.''' 
PSALM  (PSALTER.)  xciii.  2. 


WITH  NOTES  AND  SUPPLEMENT  BY 

FRANK  ALLABEN, 

HISTORIOGRAPHER  AND  SCIENTIST. 

NEW  YORK : 

CHARLES    H.    LUDWIG,    PRINTER,    90    WALKER    STREET. 
1900. 


JOHN  WATTS  DK  PEVSTER. 
Taken  in  1888. 


Copyright,    lyoo,   by  John  Watts  de  Peyster. 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 


Four  years  ago  I  was  riding  with  an  investigating  friend  in  the 
country,  discussing  how  it  was  that  God  should  have  selected 
the  earth  as  the  theatre  of  his  revelations  to  the  Jews  and  to  the 
Christians.  Then  one  of  us  suddenly  remembered  that  a  Ger- 
man professor,  Dr.  C.  Schoepffer,  in  a  public  lecture  in  Berlin, 
had  maintained  the  truth  of  the  Tychonian  theory,  .founded  on 
the  supposition  that  the  earth  stands  still  in  space,  that  the  sun 
revolves  around  the  earth,  and  that  the  planets  and  other  members 
of  our  solar  system  revolve  about  the  sun.  So  far  from  being 
ridiculed,  this  startling  proposition  of  Tycho  Brahe,  suddenly 
revived  about  three  centuries  after  its  announcement  by  the 
famous  Dane,  received  serious  attention,  and  the  facts  on  which 
Dr.  Schoepffer  based  his  arguments  were  felt  to  be  incontro- 
vertible, whatever  judgment  may  be  passed  upon  his  conclusions. 

The  laws  which  govern  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  those  on 
which  astronomical  calculations  have  hitherto  been  founded, 
were  long  considered  unerringly  certain  and  irrefutably  fixed, 
such  as  those  of  gravitation,  the  aberration  of  light  and  stellar 
parallax,  and  were  not  deemed  subjects  of  legitimate  controversy; 
but  experts  of  the  highest  order  are  now  by  no  means  agreed  as 
to  the  actual  forces  or  laws  which  govern  the  physical  universe, 
the  postulate  of  which  was  hitherto  considered  infallible. 

After  discussing  the  matter  one  of  us  remarked :  "  If  Schoepf- 
fer is  right  that  establishes  the  literal  truth  of  the  Bible."  The 
other  replied:  iiiRem  acu  teligisti  !  ' — vulgarly  translated,  'You 
have  hit  the  nail  on  the  head  ! '  " 

Without  pretending  to  come  forward  as  a  Herschel  or  a 
Laplace,  any  hypothesis  which  a  professional  scientist  has  the 
courage  to  publish,  in  a  country  filled  with  learned  men,  and  which 
is  there  treated  without  ridicule,  must  have  some  force  in  it. 
Consequently  this  German  pamphlet,  carefully  translated,  is  pre- 
sented to  American  readers  with  a  simple  request,  that  whoever 
receives  it  will  read  it  with  attention  and  reflect  upon  its  scienti- 
fic arguments  and  presentation,  before  throwing  it  aside  as  "a 
weak  invention  of  the  enemy." 

J.  WATTS  DE  PEYSTER  (ANCHOR), 

A.  M.,  Litt.  D.,  Ph.  D.,   LL.  D. 


V 


s     \ 


s 


References  to  pages  12  and  13. 


THE  EARTH  STANDS  FAST. 

PROOFS  THAT  THE  EARTH  REVOLVES  NEITHER  UPON 
ITS  OWN  AXIS  NOR  YET  ABOUT  THE  SUN. 


[A  Translation  from  the  German  of  a  Lecture  delivered  in  Berlin,  by  Dr.  C. 

Schoepffer.    Seventh  edition.    Berlin  :  A.  Saco,  Successors, 

Publishers,  Zimmerstrasse,  No.  94.    1868.] 

Compared  with  the  Original  and  Edited  by  J.  W.  de  P. 

GENTLEMEN : 

It  requires  not  a  little  courage  to  stand  before  you  here  to  demonstrate 
the  erroneousness  of  an  opinion  which  you  have  thought  the  only  true  and 
correct  one  since  the  years  of  your  childhood.  I  believe  I  may  judge  of  the 
opinion  you  have  of  me  this  moment  by  that  which  I  should  have  had  my- 
self three  months  ago  of  him  who  should  assert  to  me  that  [|^~]  the  Earth 
stands  immovable  and  the  Sun  is  revolving  about  it.  Such  a  man  I  should 
have  considered  either  very  ignorant  or  a  lunatic  ;  and  yet  now  I  regard  the 
fact  of  the  stability  of  the  earth  as  a  truth  which  cannot  be  shaken.  More 
over,  I  believe  that  those  of  you  who  are  without  prejudice  and  free  from 
prepossessions  and  will  examine  what  I  am  going  to  lay  before  you  will  soon 
share  my  opinion. 

Not  long  ago  we  had  an  opportunity  of  seeing  the  tests  with  the  pendu- 
lum which,  according  to  the  theory  of  the  widely-known  physicist,  Mr.  Leon 
Foucault,  are  said  to  furnish  the  proof  of  the  daily  rotation  of  the  earth 
upon  its  axis.  I  had  well-nigh  failed  to  take  any  notice  of  those  Pendulum 
tests.  Although,  when  explaining  to  my  pupils,  boys  and  girls,  in  my  geo- 
graphical and  physical  lessons,  the  revolution  of  the  earth  about  the  sun, 
I  had  always  found  one  point  (which  you  will  learn  in  the  course  of  my 
lecture)  very  strange — nay,  incomprehensible — yet  I  was  so  convinced  of  the 
daily  rotation  of  the  earth,  and  its  yearly  course  round  the  sun,  as  to  deem 
Mr.  Foucault's  pendulum-proof  entirely  superfluous.  Nevertheless,  I  was 
present  at  the  experiment,  and  I  will  explain  it  in  a  few  words,  to  make  the 
application  clear. 

If  we  imagine  around  the  earth's  sphere  a  limited — or  unlimited — number 
of  circles,  parallel  with  the  equator,  we  call  these  circles,  precisely  on  account 
of  their  parallelism  with  the  equator,  parallel  circles.  It  follows,  from  the 
spherical  form  of  the  earth,  that  the  circles  become  smaller  the  nearer  we 
place  them  to  the  poles  ;  and  if  we  should  imagine  two  parallel  circles 
drawn  around  the  earth  through  this  lecture-room,  the  northern  one,  even 


thus,  would  be  somewhat  smaller  than  the  southern  one.  Let  now  the  earth 
revolve  in  twenty-four  hours  upon  its  axis,  so  that  the  two  imaginary  circles 
laid  through  this  room  have  made  a  complete  rotation.  As  both  have  made 
their  circuit  in  equal  time,  and  as  the  southern  one  is  larger  than  the  northern 
one,  the  single  parts  of  the  one  to  the  south  must  move  with  greater  rapidity 
than  those  of  the  one  to  the  north. 

Let  us  glance  briefly  at  the  instrument,  so  widely-known  and  yet  in  many 
respects  an  enigma,  which  we  will  call  the  pendulum.  It  may  be  shown  that 
the  even  oscillation  of  the  Pendulum  is  independent  of  the  alterations  (rota- 
tions) of  its  point  of  suspension.  This  immutability  of  the  even  oscillation 
was  said  by  Mr.  Foucault  to  prove  the  rotation  of  the  earth  upon  its  axis. 
If,  for  example,  we  let  a  pendulum  oscillate  in  a  direction  from  north  to 
south,  across  the  two  parallel  circles  which  we  have  in  imagination  drawn 
through  this  room,  then  will  its  even  oscillation,  as  Mr.  Foucault  assumes, 
be  unaffected  by  the  rotation  of  the  plane  (or  point  of  suspension),  and 
consequently  will  move  in  advance  of  the  northern,  more  slowly  rotating, 
parallel  circle,  but  will  fall  behind  the  southern,  more  rapidly  rotating  par- 
allel circle.  The  path  of  the  pendulum  will,  therefore,  soon  deviate  from 
the  direction,  north  to  south,  the  end  formerly  swinging  to  the  north  swing- 
ing more  and  more  towards  the  east,  and  the  end  swinging  southward  more 
and  more  towards  the  west,  until  finally  the  pendulum  swings  entirely  in  the 
direction  from  east  to  west.  At  this  point  the  cause  of  deviation  has  ceased  ; 
for  the  pendulum  swings  no  more  across  two  unequally-rapid  parallel  circles, 
but  across  a  single  circle.  As  the  cause  of  deviation  no  longer  exists,  the 
deviation  ought  to  cease.  But  no,  it  continues  !  the  pendulum  also  leaves 
the  direction,  east  to  west,  to  deviate  to  southeast  and  northwest,  and  thus 
reaches  conditions  tinder  which,  according  to  Foucault,  it  must  deviate  again  ! 

Now,  as  the  pendulum  does  not  remain  in  the  direction  from  east  to 
west,  but  also  deviates  from  this,  I  think  I  am  entitled  to  .the  belief  that  the 
deviation  of  the  pendulum  is  caused  by  something  other  than  the  rotation  of 
the  earth — something,  it  is  true,  which  is  still  unknown  to  us.  Furthermore, 
I  have  found,  by  careful  experiments,  that  the  deviation  is  not  the  same 
with  all  pendulums.  The  heavier  the  bob,  the  slower  becomes  the  deviation 
of  the  pendulum  ;  the  lighter  the  bob,  the  more  rapidly  the  deviation  takes 
place.  Since  the  rotation  of  the  earth  upon  its  axis,  if  existing,  must  be  a 
uniform  one,  necessarily  with  all  pendulums  the  deviation  should  be  uni- 
form ;  but  this  is  not  the  case. 

The  conviction  that  the  Foucault  experiment  with  the  pendulum  was 
erroneous  made  me  examine  more  carefully  the  further  reasons  from  which, 
heretofore,  the  rotation  of  the  earth  upon  its  axis  was  inferred  ;  and  thus  I  per- 
ceived that  there  had  been  no  demonstration  whatever  of  suth  a  supposition. 

Long  ago  the  Indian,  Brahmagypta,  the  Pythagorean,  Philolaus,  Niketns 
of  Syracuse,  and  Aristarch  of  Samos  (who  was  born  267  15.  C.),  asserted 
that  the  star-sphere  is  immovable,  and  that  the  earth,  revolving  upon  its  axis, 


causes  the  daily  rise  and  set  of  the  celestial  bodies.  These  men,  who  were 
all  profound  thinkers,  accepted  the  opinion  cited  because  they  could  not 
comprehend  the  velocity  with  which  the  celestial  bodies  must  fly  to  compass 
their  daily  courses  round  the  earth  in  twenty-four  hours.  But  in  our  times 
every  one  will  concede  that  this  objection  is  without  force.  Tell  a  country 
lad,  in  a  place  where  there  is  yet  no  railroad  and  only  wagons  are  possessed, 
that  we  can  make  a  mile  in  five  minutes,  and  he  will  think  this  utterly 
impossible.  And  yet  we  know  that  light  travels  40,000  miles  a  second,  and 
that  the  velocity  of  electricity  is  still  greater.*  Therefore,  gentlemen,  the 
argument  is  rendered  void,  that  celestial  bodies  (having  their  orbits  in  a  space 
which,  according  to  our  supposition,  is  either  vacuous  or  filled  with  a  very 
thin  matter  of  the  nature  of  which  we  know  nothing  definite  yet)  could  not 
have  such  a  velocity  as  to  finish  their  course  around  the  earth  in  twenty- 
four  hours. 

Let  us  now  dwell  upon  another  argument  which  has  been  accepted,  but 
which  is  equally  void.  Measuring  the  meridians  of  the  earth,  we  have  found 
that  the  earth  is  flattened  towards  the  poles,  and  that  a  diameter  of  the 
equator  is  larger  than  an  axis  from  pole  to  pole.  Man,  who  tries  to  pene- 
trate all  the  secrets  of  nature,  attempted,  alas,  to  investigate  the  cause  of 
this  flattening  towards  the  poles,  and  Newton  thought  to  find  the  cause  in 
the  rotation  of  the  earth.  By  this  motion  all  particles  of  the  globe,  especi- 
ally the  bodies  on  the  surface,  are  said  to  have  an  impulse  to  fly  away  from 
the  earth,  and  this  opinion  is,  in  agreement  with  Newton,  accepted  by  all. 
This  tendency  is  called  centrifugal  force.  At  the  poles,  where  the  velocity 
of  rotation  is  zero,  this  force  would  be  equal  to  zero,  and  would  increase 
thence  to  the  equator  in  proportion  to  the  size  of  the  parallel  circles  ;  for,  as 
I  have  already  remarked,  the  greater  the  parallel  circle  the  more  rapidly  each 
point  of  it  must  move  —  provided  the  earth  actually  rotates  upon  its  axis. 
It  is  said,  therefore,  that  much  more  of  the  mass  of  the  earth  is  pressed 
toward  the  equator,  and  a  much  greater  mass  is  accumulated  around  the 
equator,  for  here  the  centrifugal  tendency  acts  with  the  greatest  force- 
Hence,  they  assert,  the  earth  must  revolve,  for  without  the  rotation  of  the 
earth  the  centrifugal  tendency  would  not  exist,  and  without  the  centrifugal 
tendency  there  would  be  no  accumulation  of  greater  masses  in  the  equa- 
torial zones. 

We  have  here  another  alleged  proof  of  the  rotation  upon  the  axis  which  I 
cannot  accept,  and  which  has  been  repudiated  by  others  before  me. 

I  am  far  from  objecting  anything  to  the  correctness  of  the  measurements 

*  These  figures  are  quite  as  obsolete  as  is  the  idea  of  railway-speed.  The  lecture  was 
delivered  in  1854.  The  velocity  of  light  is  now  estimated  at  186,000  miles  per  second 
through  the  air,  while  the  velocity  of  electricity,  through  the  air  as  a  medium,  is  said  to 
be  about  the  same  as  that  of  light,  suggesting  a  connection  between  the  two  things.  The 
discharge  of  electricity  from  a  Leyden  jar  over  a  copper  wire,  Wheaton  estimated  at  288,- 
ooo  miles  per  second. 


of  the  degrees,  although  the  measurements  made  on  various  occasions  do  not 
in  the  least  agree.  We  will  take  it  for  granted  that  a  diameter  of  the  equator  is 
larger  than  the  length  of  the  earth's  axis.  Are  there,  however,  no  other  and 
nearer-lying  reasons  which  might  have  caused  a  larger  accumulation  of  masses 
at  the  equatorial  latitudes?  It  is  known  that  heat  has  an  expanding,  cold  a 
contracting  force.  Is  it  not  possible  that,  during  the  unnumbered  thousands 
of  years  since  our  earth  came  into  existence,  the  tropical  heat  has  caused  the 
continuous  expansion  of  the  equatorial  latitudes,  while  the  cold  of  the  poles 
has  caused  the  continuous  contraction  of  the  polar  regions? 

There  is,  however,  still  another  and  nearer  reason  why  the  larger  accu- 
mulation of  masses  in  the  equatorial  latitudes  has  originated.  The  earth 
seems  to  be  in  a  state  of  continuous  growth,  and  the  flora  and  fauna  add 
very  much  to  this  growth.  It  is  neither  here  the  place,  nor  have  we  the  time, 
to  speak  of  the  immense  coal  strata  which  we  find  at  considerable  depths 
(and  still  more  of  which  we  shall  find  as  soon  as  we  succeed  in  penetrating 
deeper  into  the  earth).  Likewise,  it  would  lead  us  too  far  if  I  undertook  to 
tell  you  of  the  animal  remains,  partly  microscopic,  which  form  whole  moun- 
tains and  strata.  I  merely  mention  the  fact  that  turf  moors  grow  upon  many 
of  our  higher  mountain-chains,  and  that  our  farmers  produce  a  stratum  of 
humus  upon  rocky  ground  by  laying  out  meadows,  because  they  know  that 
a  stratum  of  earth  is  generated  by  the  growth  of  the  sod.  And  now,  let  me 
ask,  where  could  this  growth,  by  faunal  and  floral  remains,  go  on  with  greater 
effect:  —  in  the  warmer  regions,  where  fauna  and  flora  abound,  or  in  the 
polar  regions,  where  there  only  is  a  reduced  life  which  constantly  decreases 
the  nearer  you  approach  the  poles  ? 

Now,  gentlemen,  so  long  as  simpler  reasons  are  offered  to  us  in  explana- 
tion of  how  the  accumulation  of  masses  in  the  warmer  zones  has  taken  place, 
in  the  course  of  so  many  thousands  of  years,  I  cannot  make  up  my  mind  to 
accept  this  as  a  result  of  a  centrifugal  tendency  caused  by  the  rotation  of  the 
earth  upon  its  axis  ;  and  this  the  less  as,  later  on,  I  shall  call  your  attention 
to  some  contradictions  in  which  this  theory  of  centrifugal  tendency  would 
entangle  us. 

I  now  go  on  to  the  fourth  and  last  consideration  by  means  of  which  the 
rotation  of  the  earth  is  thought  to  be  demonstrated.  The  Frenchman, 
Richer,  observed  in  the  year  1672  that  a  pendulum  clock  going  normally  in 
Paris  lost  daily  two  and  one-half  minutes  in  Cayenne,  i.  e.,  five  degrees  north 
of  the  equator,  and  he  had  to  shorten  the.pendulum  by  one-eighth  of  an  inch 
to  make  it  go  correctly.  It  is  known  that  the  velocity  of  a  pendulum 
increases  with  its  shortness  and  decreases  with  its  length.  Later  on  it  was 
found  that  upon  high  mountains  also  a  noticeable  slackening  of  the  oscilla- 
tions of  the  pendulum  took  place.  Now,  since  the  oscillations  of  the  pen- 
dulum are  based  upon  the  Laws  of  Gravity — that  is  to  say,  depend  upon  the 
attraction  of  the  earth  — the  attraction  under  the  equator  and  upon  high 
mountains  must  thus  of  necessity,  it  was  argued,  be  less,  since  the  pendulum 


9 

there  makes  slower  oscillations  ;  and  it  was  concluded  that  the  centrifugal 
tendency  caused  by  the  motion  of  the  earth  upon  its  axis  reduced  the  gravity, 
and  consequently  made  the  movement  of  the  pendulum  slower.  But  this 
conclusion  also  lacks  infallibility,  for  we  may  just  as  well  suppose  that  the 
attraction  of  the  earth  diminishes  with  the  distance  from  its  centre,  which  is 
at  the  same  time  the  centre  of  attraction  ;  and  this  is  an  hypothesis  which 
has  been  accepted  by  quite  a  number  of  physicists. 

But  what  if  the  slackening  of  the  oscillations  of  the  pendulum  in  middle 
latitudes  and  upon  high  mountains  has  a  cause  which  is  quite  the  opposite 
of  that  so  far  accepted  ?  What  if  it  be  true  that  the  attraction  is  not  dimin- 
ished by  the  distance  from  the  centre  of  the  earth,  nor  by  the  centrifugal 
tendency,  but  that  an  increased  attraction,  increased  by  the  accumulation  of 
masses,  is  the  cause  of  the  slackening  of  the  oscillations  of  the  pendulum 
by  thus  augmenting  the  weight  of  the  bob  of  the  pendulum  ?  For  it  is  a 
fact — which  seems  to  be  unknown  to  many  philosophers,  although  most  of 
the  old  village  schoolmasters  are  aware  of  it — that  the  quicker  or  slower 
movements  of  the  pendulum  do  not  depend  exclusively  upon  its  length,  but 
also  upon  the  weight  of  the  bob.  One  might  perhaps  say  that  the  velocity 
of  the  oscillations  of  the  pendulum  depends  exclusively  upon  the  weight  of 
the  bob,  for  when  lengthening  the  pendulum  I  make  the  bob  work  on  a 
longer  lever,  and  therefore  increase  its  weight.  Hence  I  may  obtain  the 
same  result  by  increasing  the  weight  of  the  bob,  instead  of-  lengthening  the 
rod  of  the  pendulum.  The  village  clock  goes  too  fast,  and  the  schoolmaster 
attaches  stones  or  pieces  of  iron  to  the  bob  of  the  pendulum  in  order  to 
slacken  the  oscillations  of  the  pendulum.  Laugier  has  made  the  most  accu- 
rate observations  in  this  line.  He  found  that  one  and  the  same  pendulum, 
with  a  bob  of  2  kilograms  weight,  required  1,977  seconds  for  2,000  oscilla- 
tions ;  with  a  bob  of  4  kilograms,  required  2,010.55  seconds ;  with  a  bob  of 
6  kilograms,  2,020.04  seconds  ;  with  a  bob  of  8  kilograms,  2,027.04  seconds — 
the  number  of  oscillations  in  each  case  being  the  same.  Hence  the  larger 
the  weight  of  the  bob,  the  slower  the  oscillations  of  the  pendulum.  The 
deductions  from  these  observations — carried  out  with  the  utmost  care,  and 
published  in  the  "  Comptes  Rendus  de  I'Academie  Francaise"  (t.  xxi.,  pp. 
.117-124) — are  as  follows  :  (i)  The  laws  of  Galileo  in  regard  to  the  oscillations 
of  the  pendulum  are  not  exactly  correct ;  (2)  the  decrease  of  the  attraction 
of  the  earth  toward  the  equator,  inferred  from  the  decrease  of  the  velocity 
of  the  pendulum,  is  probably  wrong  ;  (3)  the  laws  of  falling  bodies,  so  far 
universally  accepted*  are  also  probably  not  exact ;  (4)  calculations  of  physical 
laws  in  general  are  always  untrustworthy,  as  only  experience  can  decide. 

We  have  seen  (from  the  two  considerations  last  mentioned  as  advanced 
to  prove  the  rotation  of  the  earth  upon  its  axis)  that  an  influence  of  this 
rotation  is  conjectured,  working  as  a  centrifugal  tendency  caused  by 
this  rotation.  Currents  of  the  ocean  and  of  the  atmosphere  were  also 
thought  to  be  consequences  of  this  centrifugal  tendency.  Indeed,  it  is  diffi- 


10 

cult  to  comprehend  how  it  is  possible  that  air  (this  light  body,  moved  by 
the  most  diverse  currents,  seeking  expansion,  and  so  loose  and  volatile) 
should  not  be  affected  by  the  rotation  of  the  earth.  After  the  greatest 
philosophers  have  postulated  an  influence  of  the  rotation  of  the  earth  upon 
the  solid  mass  of  the  body  of  the  earth,  surely  I  do  not  consider  it  too  pre- 
sumptuous if  I  assume  that  the  rotation  of  the  earth  must  of  necessity  influ- 
ence the  air !  It  is  not  possible,  as  I  conceive,  that  the  lighter  air  of  the 
higher  regions,  especially,  can  follow  the  globe  of  the  earth  when  it  is 
rotating  with  considerable  rapidity.  The  earth,  rotating  towards  the  east, 
would  cause  an  air  current  toward  the  west.  Were  the  universe,  where  the 
earth  is  rotating  with  its  air-belt,  perfectly  vacuous,  we  might  perhaps — I  say, 
perhaps — accept  the  view  of  a  rotation  of  the  earth  without  influence  upon 
the  air-belt  ;  but  the  nature  of  the  air  contradicts  the  thought  of  such  a 
vacuum-state.  So  far  as  we  know,  the  air  possesses  such  a  tendency  toward 
expansion  as  partly  to  neutralize  by  it  the  laws  of  gravity.  Did  not  the 
extremely  thin  air  find  a  body  in  the  universe  to  preserve  its  equilibrium, 
it  would  expand  still  further,  the  air-layers  next  would  follow,  and  finally 
also  the  entire  body  of  water  would  have  its  part  in  this  expansion  and  fly 
out  into  the  universe,  exactly  as  we  may  produce  like  phenomena  of  expan- 
sion under  the  air-pump.  There  must,  therefore,  be  in  existence  a  materia 
which  preserves  the  equilibrium  of  the  outermost  air-layers — a  materia 
which,  according  to  universal  usage,  we  will  call  ether  ;  and  it  thus  follows 
that  the  air  cannot  escape  into  endless  space — nay,  each  layer  must  press 
upon  the  next  lower  one,  and  by  this  gradually  increased  pressure  is  caused 
the  greater  density  of  the  air-layers  next  to  us. 

But  if  there  is  an  ether  (the  existence  of  which  also  seems  to  be  confirmed 
by  the  meteorites),  then  with  a  rotation  of  the  earth  such  well-known  effects 
must  appear  in  the  air-layers  as  always  arise  from  the  resistance  of  a  moving 
current  of  air.  If  now  we  set  the  earth  in  motion,  the  outermost  air-layer 
will  hang  back,  through  the  opposition  of  the  ether  (provided  the  entire  air- 
belt  is  forced,  by  attraction,  to  partake  of  the  rotation),  and  will  appear  to 
move  in  the  opposite  direction.  If  this  should  take  place,  the  outermost 
air-layer  would  likewise  exert  a  pressure  upon  the  next  lower  air-layer,  this 
would  share  in  the  current  contrary  to  the  rotation  of  the  earth,  and  in  this 
manner  the  contrary  current  would  increase  and  gradually  grow  in  such  a 
-degree  that  finally  the  entire  air-belt,  and  likewise  all  the  water  of  the  globe, 
would  turn  eastward. 

Even  suppose,  however,  that  there  is  no  ether,  but  that  its  existence  ranks 
among  the  numberless  dreams  in  which  man  has  been  indulging  while 
attempting  to  explore  the  universal,  without  being  able  to  apply  another 
measure  in  his  researches  than  that  of  our  earthly  state,  I  should  yet  claim 
that  air  cannot  participate  in  the  rotation  of  the  earth. 

How  do  our  philosophers  explain  the  fact  of  our  not  noticing  anything 
of  the  assumed  rotation  of  the  earth? — or  why,  with  this  rotation,  all  things 


11 

are  not  toppling  over  one  another?  They. explain  it  by  the  laws  of  commu- 
nicated motion.  Very  well  !  I  will  again  turn  their  weapon  against  tliem- 
selves.  A  motion  may  be  communicated  to  solid  bodies  ;  but  to  such,  how- 
ever, as  have  no  connection  in  their  parts,  can  only  be  communicated  when 
they  are  enclosed  in  a  solid  body  !  But  we  know  of  no  body  the  parts  of 
which  have  much  less  connection  with  each  other  than  is  the  case  with  the 
air.  The  air-layer  next  to  the  earth,  really  dragged  along  by  the  communi- 
cated motion,  would  not  be  able  to  communicate  its  motion  to  the  layers 
above  it,  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  stands  in  no  connection  with  them. 
These  upper  layers  must  therefore  remain  in  their  place,  or  (which  would 
signify  the  same  thing)  would  apparently  flow  westward  with  the  same 
rapidity  with  which  the  earth  is  said  to  rotate  to  the  east.  Now,  since  a 
point  on  the  equator  (if  the  earth  rotates  on  its  axis  in  a  day)  must  move 
eastward  at  the  rate  of  1,250  feet  a  second,  the  air  would  similarly  move  1,250 
feet  westward  in  a  second,  which  would  more  than  ten  times  surpass  the 
velocity  of  the  most  fearful  hurricane. 

It  is  not  myself,  however,  who  am  the  first  to  conceive  the  necessity  of 
this  current  of  the  air  westward.  All  philosophers  of  the  present  time  have 
admitted  the  necessity,  but  have  been  unable  to  find  any  proofs  of  its  exist- 
ence. The  Trade  Winds,  which  for  a  while  were  looked  upon  as  results  of 
the  rotation  of  the  earth,  lack  too  much  in  regularity — formerly  so  highly 
praised — and,  like  all  other  winds,  are  evidently  caused  by  the  differences  of 
temperature  over  the  different  regions  of  the  earth's  surface.  Consider  how 
the  air-belt  of  our  globe  produces  weaker  or  stronger  currents  in  the  most 
diverse  directions,  called  by  us  winds  or  storms  ;  consider  that  even  con- 
trary winds  flow  one  above  the  other — and  ask  how,  if  it  had  besides  to 
obey  the  double  motions  of  the  earth,  upon  itself  and  around  the  sun,  it 
would  be  possible  with  such  currents  for  our  air-belt  to  remain  in  any  wise  a 
faithful  follower  of  our  globe  ! 

We  cannot  perceive  the  rotation  of  the  earth  in  any  way.  We  cannot 
demonstrate  it !  There  are  no  air-currents  which  we  can  justly  regard  as — 
or  even  suppose  to  be — consequences  of  this  rotation.  These  facts  ought  to 
be  proof  enough  against  the  existence  of  a  rotation  of  the  earth.  Indeed 
we  wholly  lack,  as  I  remarked  in  the  beginning,  a  consideration  indicating 
rotation  which  can  be  substantiated.  Must  it  not  appear  almost  absurd  in 
us,  preoccupied  by  what  they  have  taught  >us  in  school,  to  accept  a  theory  of 
the  rotation  of  the  earth  which  neither  is,  nor  can  be,  proven?  Must  we  not 
wonder  at  the  readiness  of  the  learned  of  nearly  the  entire  world,  from  the 
time  of  Copernicus  and  Kepler,  to  accept  the  conception  of  the  rotation  of 
the  earth — and  then  search  afterwards,  now  for  nearly  three  and  a  half  cen- 
turies, for  arguments  to  maintain  it,  but  of  course  without  being  able  to 
find  them? 

M.ore  easy  will  it  be  for  me  to  prove  to  you  the  impossibility  of  an  orbit 
of  the  earth  around  the  sun.  I  shall  furnish  a  counter  proof,  ad  oculos. 


12 

The  theory  of  the  revolution  of  the  earth  around  the  sun— the  assertion 
that  it  is  kept  in  its  course  by  the  force  of  the  sun's  attraction— contradicts 
most  positively  the  laws  of  gravitation  we  know  ;  for  the  direction  of  gravity 
with  each  body  must  be  perpendicular  to  the  point  from  which  the  gravity  of 
a  larger  body  works  upon  it.  In  the  case  of  a  small  particle  of  dust  which 
lies  against  a  smooth  wall,  the  direction  of  gravity  must  be  toward  the  wall, 
or  it  would  drop  from  it.  Similarly,  the  direction  of  gravity  of  our  earth  should 
be  constantly  toward  the  sun,  on  the  supposition  that  there  is  an  attraction 
working  from  that  orb  upon  it.  Yet  this  is  not  the  case,  for  if  the  earth 
moves  in  an  orbit  around  the  sun,  the  direction  of  its  gravity  necessarily  must 
be  changing  each  moment.*  To  prove  this,  let  us  cast  a  glance  upon  the 
present  theory  of  a  yearly  revolution  of  the  earth  around  the  sun,  as  it  is 
given  in  all  the  works  known  to  me  that  treat  of  this  subject. 

To  explain  the  change  of  the  seasons,  or  in  other  words,  the  ecliptic 
of  the  sun,  it  is  necessary  to  assume  that  the  axis  of  the  earth  has  an  inclina- 
tion of  23*^°  toward  the  plane  of  the  earth's  orbit,  and  preserves  always  the 
same  inclination  during  the  entire  revolution  around  the  sun,  or  remains 
parallel  to  itself  in  all  points  of  its  course.  Let  us  materialize  this  theory  by 
taking  a  candle  for  the  sun,  and  now  lead  a  globe  aronnd  it  just  as  the  earth 
would  have  to  move  around  the  sun,  to  make  the  change  of  the  seasons 
possible. 

The  axis  of  the  earth  (Fig.  I,  A — see  page  4)  is  neither  turned  toward  nor 
from  the  sun  in  March.  The  equator  of  the  earth  then  revolves  directly  be- 
neath the  sun,  which  appears  in  the  celestial  equator.  It  shines  now  from  one 
pole  to  the  other,  and  a  meridian  on  each  side  defines  the  limit  of  illumination. 
Everywhere,  consequently,  day  and  night  are  equal,  while  each  place  revolves 
twelve  hours  in  sunshine  over  the  daily  arc  of  its  parallel  circle,  and  twelve 

*  According  to  the  Newtonian  theory,  every  molecule  of  the  earth's  mass  attracts  and 
is  attracted  by  every  molecule  of  the  sun's  mass.  Thus  the  earth  and  sun  should  always 
present  the  same  faces  toward  one  another,  as  if  a  network  of  taut  wires  connected  all  their 
molecules.  But  in  contradiction  to  this,  the  Copernican  theory  conceives  of  the  earth  as 
performing  a  daily  rotation  on  its  own  axis,  thus  constantly  overcoming  the  force  of  gravi- 
tation between  the  molecules  of  sun  and  earth.  And  what  causes  this  axial  rotation  ? 
The  astronomers  and  philosophers  will  have  some  trouble  in  naming  a  force  so  powerful  as 
originally  to  have  inaugurated,  and  since  to  have  maintained,  an  axial  revolution  of  a  mass 
of  molecules  which  must  needs  continuously  overcome  the  gravitational  pull  of  each  mole- 
cule toward  the  sun.  In  the  case  of  the  earth  and  moon,  where  an  attractive  force  is 
evident  as  the  power  which  holds  the  moon  in  its  orbit,  this  contradiction  does  not  exist — 
as  Dr.  Schoepffer  notes,  the  moon  ever  presents  the  same  face  toward  the  earth  as  if  all  the 
molecules  of  her  mass  were  rigidly  fixed  to  the  earth  by  invisible  rods.  It  is  a  remarkable 
fact  that,  in  the  case  of  both  Mercury  and  Venus,  whose  revolution  about  the  sun  is  a 
matter  of  ocular  telescopic  demonstration,  the  case  is  the  same  as  with  the  moon.  The 
young  American  astronomer,  Lowell,  has  in  recent  years  confirmed  the  conclusion  of  the 
Italian  astronomer,  Schiaparelli,  some  twelve  years  since,  that  both  Venus  and  Mercury 

hemispheres  of  each   experiencing    perpetual  day  and  the  other  hemisphere  perpetual 
night.  [F.  A.] 


13 

hours  without  sunshine  over  the  nightly  arc  of  its  parallel  circle.  The 
equator  has  summer,  the  northern  hemisphere  Spring,  the  southern  Fall. 

From  March  till  June  the  north  pole  of  the  inclined  axis  of  the  earth  is 
gradually  turning  toward  the  sun.  The  entire  northern  hemisphere  inclines 
toward  it  until  on  June  21  (Fig.  I,  W) — the  longest  day  for  the  northern  hemi- 
sphere— the  sun  stands  directly  above  the  Tropic  of  Cancer.  The  northern 
hemisphere  has  Summer,  the  southern  Winter. 

From  June  to  September  the  axis  returns  again  to  such  a. position  as 
neither  to  be  turned  toward  nor  from  the  sun,  wherefore'  the  earth  is  illu- 
minated, September  23  (Fig.  I,  B),  as  on  March  21.  The  sun  again  stands 
directly  above  the  equator,  which  has  summer  the  second  time,  while  Fall 
begins  again  upon  the  northern  hemisphere,  Spring  upon  the  southern. 

From  September  to  December  the  axis  of  the  earth  turns  its  south  pole 
more  and  more  to  the  sun,  which  consequently  stands  directly  above  the 
Tropic  of  Capricorn  on  December  21.  Then  an  illumination  occurs  exactly 
opposite  to  the  one  of  June  21.  The  south  pole  is  illuminated  and  the  north 
pole  has  its  long  night.  The  northern  hemisphere  has  its  Winter,  the 
southern  its  Summer.  From  December  to  March  the  axis  of  the  earth 
returns  to  its  first  position. 

For  the  readers  of  this  lecture  a  diagram  is  added — see  p.  4.  In  the  middle, 
at  S,  we  see  the  sun.  The  dotted  circle  represents  the  orbit  of  the  earth,  and 
the  arrows  indicate  the  direction  of  the  revolution  of  the  earth.  We  see  the 
earth  in  its  various  positions,  at  A,  W,  B,  O.  W  represents  at  the  same 
time  the  western,  O  the  eastern  direction,  while  the  arrows  within  the 
spheres  indicate  the  direction  of  the  daily  rotation  of  the  earth  from  west  to 
east.  Of  the  lines  crossing  the  globes,  aa  represents  the  equator,  kk  the 
northern  tropic,  ss  the  southern  tropic,  and  ns  the  axis  of  the  earth.  At  A 
one  sees  the  earth  on  March  21  :  its  axis  is  turned  neither  to  nor  from 
the  sun  ;  its  half,  turned  toward  the  sun,  is  illuminated  from  the  north 
pole  to  the  south  pole.  At  W  one  sees  the  position  of  the  earth  on  June 
21  ;  the  north  pole  is  turned  to  the  sun,  the  south  pole  from  it ;  the  north 
pole  circle  is  entirely  in  sunlight,  the  south  pole  circle  entirely  in  darkness. 
B  shows  the  position  of  the  earth  on  September  22 :  one  sees  it  half  dark, 
from  north  pole  to  south  pole  turned  away  from  the  sun.  O  represents  the 
position  of  the  earth  on  December  21 :  the  south  pole  is  turned  to  the  sun, 
the  north  pole  from  it.  One  sees  how  the  axis  of  the  earth  always  main- 
tains the  same  direction,  remaining  parallel  to  itself,  and  how  only  thus  can 
the  seasons  be  explained — if  it  be  supposed  that  the  earth  goes  round  the 
sun  in  a  year. 

Thus  far  the  theory  of  the  modern  is  all  right.  But  I  now  come  to  a 
point,  incomprehensible  as  yet,  and  left  entirely  out  of  consideration,  as 
mentioned  by  me  in  the  beginning.  This  invariably  appeared  strange  to  me, 
as  often  as  I  explained  the  revolution  of  the  earth  round  the  sun  in  teaching 
geography  or  physics. 


14 

As  it  is  impossible  to  assume  that  the  earth  revolves  in  a  year  round  the 
sun,  while  at  the  same  time  throughout  this  orbit  the  sun  revolves  daily 
round  the  earth,  we  are  therefore  bound  to  assume,  in  order  to  explain  the 
regular  changes  of  day  and  night,  that  during  its  revolution  around  the  sun 
the  earth  also  rotates  daily  upon  its  own  axis,  from  west  to  east.  These  two 
revolutions,  however,  can  by  no  means  be  combined.  From  June  21  to  Sep- 
tember 22  both  kinds  of  movement  might  be  thought  of  as  combined  (Fig.  I, 
IV  to  B),  hut  from  September  22  back  to  June  21,  the  combination  of  the 
two  movements  becomes  utterly  absurd,  because  the  earth  would  then  rotate 
daily  in  an  eastern  direction,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  move  forward  in  quite 
varying  directions  !  But  each  rotating  body  which  moves  from  its  place 
receives  the  direction  of  its  movement  from  the  kind  of  its  rotation,  and  vice 
versa,  the  direction  of  its  rotation  from  the  direction  of  its  movement. 
If  the  earth  rotates  toward  the  east,  it  must  also  move  to  the  east.  If  at  the 
same  time  another  force  acts,  enforcing  another  movement,  perhaps  to  the 
west,  then  the  one  of  the  two  forces  which  is  the  stronger  must  neutralize 
the  other. 

If  we  compare  with  each  other  the  two  halves  of  the  supposed  orbit  of 
the  earth  around  the  sun  (i.  e.,  the  half  of  the  orbit  from  ff  through  BO, 
with  the  half  orbit  from  O  through  A  to  IV),  we  find  that  from  W  to  O 
the  direction  of  the  rotation  somewhat  harmonizes  with  the  direction  of  the 
movement,  whereas  from  O  to  W  the  direction  of  the  rotation  is  absolutely 
contrary  to  the  direction  of  the  movement.  This  may  be  seen  by  leading  a 
rotating  globe  about  a  light,  as  in  Fig.  I.  To  explain  this  striking  point, 
we  must  assume  that  the  direction  of  the  gravity  is  constantly  changing 
during  the  period  of  a  revolution  of  the  earth  around  the  sun — a  thing  which 
is  really  too  strange,  and  does  not  harmonize  with  the  fact  that  we  are  bound 
to  assume  that  the  direction  of  gravity  is  toward  the  sun,  since  the  sun  is 
regarded  as  the  body  which  keeps  the  earth  in  its  course.  Fig.  2  will  explain 
the  matter.  The  sphere  E,  as  the  arrows  indicate,  must  constantly  rotate 
towaijd  0,  and  run  first  from  a  to  b,  and  then  back  from  d  to  c.  Hence 
necessarily  in  its  course  to  O  it  must  have  the  direction  of  its  gravity  in  the 
line  ali,  while  in  its  course  to  IV  the  direction  of  its  gravity  is  in  the  line 
cd,  and  therefore  first  downwards,  then  upwards.  True  enough,  there  is  no 
up  and  down  in  the  universe,  but  the  case  remains  the  same.  We  shall  later 
on  return  to  the  fact  that  this  constant  changing  of  the  direction  of  the 
gravity  of  the  earth  contradicts  all  our  experience. 

According  to  the  opinion  now  prevailing,  the  earth  is  kept  in  its  course 
by  the  power  of  the  sun's  attraction.  But  either  this  supposition  contradicts 
the  supposed  double  motion  of  the  earth,  or  else  we  must  postulate  physical 
laws  contradicting  each  and  all  our  experiences.  For  it  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion to  suppose  a  double  motion  of  the  earth,  about  itself  and  around  the 
sun,  which  can  be  brought  into  harmony  with  the  changes  of  the  seasons  and 
the  change  of  day  and  night,  and  in  which  at  the  same  time  the  direction  of 


15 

gravity  is  invariably  tending  toward  the  sun — which  must  necessarily  be  the 
case  if  the  earth  is  kept  in  its  course  by  the  attraction  of  the  sun. 

The  theorists  presume  that  two  forces  are  operative  in  each  circular  motion. 
If,  e.  g.,  we  tie  a  ball  to  a  thread  and  make  it  go  around  in  a  circle,  the  thread 
always  straightened,  one  force  tends  to  drive  the  ball  away  from  the  centre 
in  a  straight  line,  and  for  this  reason  is  called  the  centrifugal  or  flying 
force  ;  while  the  other,  which  here  is  represented  by  the  thread,  pulls  the 
ball  always  toward  the  centre,  and  therefore  is  called  centripetal  force. 
Both  forces  being  in  operation,  the  ball  can  follow  no  line  which  is  dictated 
to  it  by  either  of  the  two  forces,  but  will  always  take  a  diagonal  direction  ; 
and  out  of  the  composition  of  these  numberless  small  diagonals,  the  orbital 
motion  results. 

Let  us  now  more  closely  look  into  this  circular  motion,  and  we  shall  find 
that  it  is  a  simple  one.  The  point  where  the  thread  is  tied  on  (where  also, 
therefore,  the  centripetal  force  coming  from  my  hand  works)  is  always  directed 
toward  the  centre  of  the  motion,  i.  e.,  the  hand.  Should  it  have  still  another 
motion  around  an  axis,  the  pole  of  this  axis  would  have  to  lie  at  the  suspension 
point,  and  to  remain  always  in  the  direction  of  the  hand.  But  what  is  law  with 
one  body,  must  be  the  law  with  all  other  bodies  under  like  circumstances. 

The  only  oelestial  body  which  is  near  enough  to  us  to  be  observed  with 
accuracy  is  the  Moon,  and  we  see  her  making  her  revolution  around  the  Earth 
under  the  same  conditions  as  the  ball  in  our  illustration.  Take  now  the 
Moon  instead  of  the  ball,  the  Earth  instead  of  the  hand,  instead  of  the  thread 
the  attraction  of  the  Earth,  which  though  invisible  works  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  thread.  Then  we  see  why,  indeed,  the  Moon  always  turns  the  same 
side  toward  the  Earth — for  any  turning,  any  changed  direction  of  gravity, 
is  rendered  impossible  by  the  force  of  the  attraction  of  the  Earth.  Why 
should  we  not  continue  to  draw  our  conclusions  from  the  Moon,  since  this 
is  so  near  the  Earth?  If  the  Earth  is  revolving  around  the  Sun,  and  kept  in 
its  course  by  the  attraction  of  the  Sun,  then  by  the  constant  operation  of  this 
very  attraction  a  rotation  upon  its  axis,  such  as  we  have  to  accept  with  the 
Copernican  system,  must  be  rendered  as  impossible  as  it  is  in  the  case  of 
the  Moon.  Then  one-half  of  the  Earth  would  be  always  illuminated  by  the 
Sun,  the  other  half  always  in  darkness.  That,  again,  is  contrary  to  the  truth. 
Consequently,  the  simultaneous  rotation  of  the  Earth  upon  its  axis  and  revo- 
lution around  the  Sun,  as  heretofore  assumed,  are  not  possible. 

Now  we  might,  perhaps,  assume  that  the  earth  is  at  the  centre,  rotating 
in  twenty-four  hours  upon  itself,  while  the  sun  yearly  makes  the  circle  about 
it  which  is  called  the  ecliptic.  Such  an  arrangement  would  come  somewhat 
nearer  the  possibility.  Yet  there  is  no  reason  for  this  assumption,  so  long  as 
it  is  not  possible  to  prove  the  rotation  of  the  earth  upon  its  axis.  As  yet, 
however,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  easier  to  show  the  contrary. 

I  have  proven  this  contrary  mainly  by  means  of  the  absence  of  a  constant 
air-current  from  east  to  west.  For  the  same  reason,  if  the  earth  were  to 


16 

circle  about  the  sun,  the  air-belt  would  stay  back  towards  the  side  opposite 
to  the  course,  and  the  air  would  thus  follow  the  earth  like  a  long  tail,  as  is 
seen  with  comets.  Let  the  tail  of  the  comet  consist  of  whatever  it  may, 
we  have  to  look  upon  it  as  an  atmosphere  of  those  puzzling  bodies  ;  and  their 
atmosphere  must  stay  back,  tail-like,  as  they  move  on  through  the  universe. 

Finally,  we  desire  to  return  once  more  to  the  consideration  of  attraction, 
in  order  to  prove  that  the  combination  of  the  rotation  of  the  earth  upon 
itself  and  its  revolution  around  the  sun  is  an  impossibility.  When  we  spoke 
of  the  now-accepted  theory  of  a  revolution  of  the  earth,  we  demonstrated 
that  according  to  it  the  direction  of  gravity  of  the  earth  would  have  to  change 
every  moment.  Again,  in  order  for  the  sun  to  keep  our  earth  in  its  course 
the  direction  of  the  gravity  would  each  time  have  to  go  to  the  point  of  the 
surface  of  the  earth  which  was  nearest  to  the  sun,  and  upon  which  therefore 
the  centripetal  force  of  the  sun  would  work  directly.  Towards  this  point, 
therefore,  the  gravity  of  the  earth  must  necessarily  press  (just  as  the  centre 
of  gravitation  of  the  moon  necessarily  lies  in  the  centre  of  the  side  which  is 
constantly  facing  us),  and  all  loose  bodies  would  inevitably  hasten  towards  it. 
But,  according  to  our  observations,  this  is  not  so.  The  centre  of  gravity  of 
the  earth  is  evidently  in  its  centre,  and  hence  it  depends  upon  its  own  mass, 
without  an  outside  force  like  the  attraction  of  the  sun  working  upon  it. 
Is  this  not  a  convincing  argument :  first,  that  the  earth  is  not  kept  on  its 
course  by  an  attraction  of  the  sun,  because  this  mighty  attraction  could  not 
take  place  without  changing,  the  earth's  centre  of  gravity ;  and  second,  that 
since  the  centre  of  the  earth,  untouched  by  any  outside  influence,  is  at  the 
same  time  its  centre  of  gravity,  on  this  account  this  centre  of  gravity  must 
be  accepted  as  being  the  centre  of  the  entire  visible  creation  ? 

I  am  far  from  denying  absolutely  that  the  sun,  or  the  moon  even,  exerts 
a  certain  attracting  force  upon  the  earth  ;  but  I  believe  I  may  assume  with 
positiveness  that  this  attracting  force  is  too  insignificant  to  exert  any  influence 
upon  the  rigid  portion  of  our  earth,  but  is  confined  as  to  its  effect  to  the 
liquid  bodies — mainly  the  air.  Now  since  the  attractive  force  of  the  sun  is 
so  inconsiderable  that  it  can  exert  an  influence  only  upon  the  liquid  bodies, 
and  that  always  insignificant,  it  is  evident  that  it  is  much  too  slight  to  keep 
the  earth  in  a  circular  course,  if  working  as  centripetal  force,  Such  an  im- 
mense force  of  attraction  as  would  be  required  to  keep  the  earth  in  its  course 
around  the  sun,  would  long  since  have  drawn  the  atmosphere  away  from  the 
earth  to  the  sun — as  similarly,  on  the  other  hand,  the  earth  would  quickly 
attract  any  atmosphere  formed  on  the  moon.* 

Let  us  now  consider  what  revolutions  in  the  total  realm  of  astronomy 
would  be  created  by  acceptance  of  my  assertion  that  the  earth  stands  still 
in  the  centre  of  the  universe.  Though  radical,  such  revolutions  are  yet  com- 
paratively insignificant.  They  consist  simply  in  accepting  as  real  the 

*  Astronomers  have  long  recognized  that  the  Moon  is  devoid  of  an  atmosphere. 


17 

apparent  movement  of  the  celestial  bodies  which  are  to-day  considered 
fictitious.  This  was  done  by  Tycho  de  Brahe  who,  in  my  opinion,  was  the 
greatest  of  all  astronomers.  He  claimed  that  the  earth  remains  immovable 
in  the  centre  of  the  world,  the  entire  heavens  revolving  around  it  in  twenty- 
four  hours,  with  the  moon,  as  well  as  the  sun,  by  means  of  motions  of  their 
own,  describing  separate  circles  around  the  earth,  just  as  Mercury  and  the 
other  planets  were  describing  epicycles. 

Consequently,  material  points  in  astronomy  are  not  altered,  since  it 
remains  the  same  with  the  different  calculations,  whether  we  explain  the 
local  changes  of  the  stars  by  a  rotation  of  the  earth,  or  by  a  rotation  of  the 
starred  firmament.  But  many  immaterial  theories  are  dissolved  into  dreams. 

In  the  first  place,  we  have  to  a-bandon  the  opinion  that  the  so-called  fixed 
stars  are  suns,  and  the  so-called  planets  bodies  like  our  earth  ;  for  the  calcu- 
lations by  means  of  which  the  mass  and  size  of  the  celestial  bodies  are 
thought  to  be  determined  are  erroneous,  being  based  upon  wrong  principles. 
For  instance,  the  weight  of  the  sun  has  been  calculated  by  means  of  the  force 
of  the  attraction  which  it  was  thought  to  exert  upon  the  planets.  If  now, 
however,  the  sun  is  no  longer  the  ruling  star,  but  fettered  instead  by'  the 
force  of  attraction  of  the  earth,  turns  about  the  latter,  then  naturally  that 
calculation  must  have  been  erroneous.  , 

Moreover,  they  started  from  a  wrong  principle  in  calculating  the  size 
of  the  celestial  bodies.  It  is  a  known  phenomenon  that  the  further  off 
bodies  are,  the  smaller  they  look  upon  our  globe.  An  object  distant  5,ooo 
times  its  own  diameter  can  no  longer  be  seen  by  the  human  eye.  According 
to  this  law  the  size  of  the  celestial  .bodies  was  calculated.  From  their  apparent 
size  and  their  distance  it  was  calculated  how  many  times  their  real  size  must 
surpass  their  apparent  size.  But  one  thing  was  forgotten — namely,  the  im- 
portant circumstance  that  the  law  according  to  which  objects  appear  smaller 
in  proportion  to  their  distance  cannot  be  applied  to  shining  bodies.  The 
stronger  is  the  light  of  a  shining  body,  the  further  it  can  be  seen  in 
unchanged  size.  I  have  stated  that  a  body  becomes  invisible  if  the  distance 
amounts  to  5,000  times  its  diameter.  If  this  law  held  good  for  the  shining 
bodies,  then  a  light  with  a  diameter  of  i-inch  could  no  longer  be  seen  at  a 
distance  of  225  steps.  But  it  may  be  seen,  in  unchanged  size,  a  distance  of 
some  odd  thousand  steps  ! 

The  shining  of  the  sun  being  very  intense,  the  sun  must  also  be  visible 
in  its  actual  size  at  an  immense  distance,  and  it  is  very  readily  possible  that 
it  is  not  much  larger  than  it  appears  to  our  eyes  !  Furthermore,  it  is  not 
only  possible,  but  very  probable,  that  the  law  according  to  which  bodies 
appear  smaller  the  further  distant  they  are,  holds  good  only  in  our  denser 
atmosphere.  If,  during  a  clear  cold  night,  the  vapors  of  the  air  are  precipi- 
tated, and  the  sun  rises  and  lights  up  the  air,  free  from  vapors,  we  then  see 
mountains,  regions,  places  (which  at  other  times  we  see  only  in  the  blue 
distance)  so  greatly  magnified  as  to  appear  nearer,  while  we  are  able  to  dis- 


18 

tinguish  them  exactly.  The  laws  of  refraction  are  conspicuously  altered. 
What  if  they  cannot  be  applied  to  the  ether,  or— should  we  prefer,  in  place 
of  ether,  to  postulate  empty  space— to  that  empty  space?  I  know  this  much 
from  experience  :  the  doctrine  of  visual  angles  is  not  at  ail  absolutely  correct, 
but  the  greater  or  lesser  purity  of  the  atmosphere  must  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration. 

The  calculations  which  have  been  based  upon  moon-eclipses  I  shall  not 
accept  as  correct  so  long  as  it  cannot  be  demonstrated  to  me  that  the  laws 
of  the  refraction  of  the  rays  of  light  apply  to  space.  In  reference  to  the 
fixed  stars,  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  calculations  have  been  made  erro- 
neously. Moreover,  the  entire  calculations  of  their  distances  are  reduced 
to  nothing  as  soon  as  we  look  upon  the  earth  as  stationary.  According  to  the 
current  theory,  on  December  21  the  earth  stands  40,000,000  of  miles  away 
from  the  point  where  it  stands  on  June  21,  while  yet  a  star  which  you  have 
seen  through  the  telescope  culminating  on  December  21,  you  will  see  through 
the  same  telescope  on  June  21  culminating  on  the  same  spot  of  the  firma- 
ment !  That  distance  of  40,000,000  of  miles  would  consequently  be  nothing 
compared  with  the  distance  of  the  star  observed.  But  this  calculation  of 
distance  becomes  void  as  soon  as  we  return  to  the  belief  in  the  stability 
of  the  earth. 

Permit  me,  gentlemen,  to  call  your  attention  to  another  contradiction 
which  ought  long  ago  to  have  shown  the  erroneousness  of  the  astronomical 
calculations.  Calculating  the  supposed  force  of  attraction  exerted  by  the 
sun,  it  was  found  that  a  body  exhibiting  a  pressure  of  one  pound  on  our 
earth  would  exhibit  a  pressure  of  27  pounds  on  the  sun.  If  all  bodies  on 
the  sun  exhibit  a  weight  so  much  greater  than  on  the  earth,  the  entire  mass 
of  the  sun  must  be  pressed  together  with  commensurate  force,  and  must  con- 
sist of  much  denser  matter.  And  yet,  upon  comparing  the  calculated  weight 
of  the  sun  with  its  calculated  volume,  it  was  found  that  the  sun's  matter  was 
surpassed  four  times  in  density  by  the  matter  the  earth  consists  of !  According 
to  this,  the  bodies  on  the  sun  are  27  times  heavier  than  they  would  be  on  the 
earth,  while  yet  this  weight  exhibits  108  times  less  energy  than  on  the  earth, 
the  sun's  density  being  one-fourth  the  density  of  the  earth  !  I  cannot  under- 
stand this.  I  can  only  look  upon  these  figures  as  results  of  calculations 
based  upon  false  principles. 

I  must  also  deny  that  the  planets  have  atmospheres.  A  celestial  body, 
rushing  with  immense  velocity  through  space,  cannot  have  an  atmosphere 
similar  to  that  of  our  earth.  The  moon,  the  nature  of  which  we  know  best, 
here  again  gives  us  the  answer,  or  rather  confirms  what  I  have  reasoned  out 
from  the  general  laws  of  nature :  the  moon  has  no  atmosphere.  Neither  can 
the  other  stars  have  any  ;  and  the  observations  which  are  to  demonstrate  the 
existence  of  atmospheres  are  surely  based  upon  an  error.  To  make  observa- 
tions of  this  kind  with  any  degree  of  security  we  would  have  to  first  lift 


19 

ourselves  above  our  own  atmosphere,  and  to  erect  our  observatories  at  least 
on  the  summit  of  the  Dhawalagiri. 

Furthermore,  the  bodies  of  the  sun,  the  moon  and  the  planets  cannot 
bear  any  resemblance  to  the  earth  in  their  surfaces,  but  must  consist  of 
matters  closely  combined  with  each  other,  as  we  see  also  from  the  meteorites 
now  and  then  falling  upon  the  earth.  Loose  matters,  earth  and  stones  on 
their  surfaces,  would  be  attracted  by  the  force  of  the  attraction  of  the  earth 
and  be  dragged  towards  it.  The  hypothesis  of  a  habitableness  of  these 
bodies  must  be  dumped  into  the  realm  of  dreams,  on  account  of  the  various 
reasons  given. 

How  we  came  to  entertain  the  present  astronomical  ideas  is  now  clearly 
demonstrated.  We  naturally  supposed  that  the  Creator  must  have  placed 
the  stars  at  a  considerable  distance  in  order  to  light  up  very  large  portions 
of  the  earth's  sphere  at  the  same  time.  Man  calculated  the  distances  qf  stars 
which  were  most  important  to  us,  calculated  the  sizes  of  the  stars  frqm  these 
distances  by  wrongly-applied  laws  of  reduction,  stood  astonished  before 
these  sizes,  and  was  compelled  to  look  upon  the  numberless  fixed  stars  as 
just  so  many  suns,  and  upon  our  earth  as  a  minute  particle  of  the  universe. 
It  was  a  logical  consequence  that  it  should  seem  to  him  contrary  to  reason  to 
consider  these  mighty  celestial  bodies  as  circling  around  the  earth,  and  as 
having  evidently  to  thank  the  earth  for  their  existence.  And  thus  man  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  earth  must  be  the  rotating  and  revolving  body, 
moving  around  the  sun.  And  man  went  on  and  on,  building  upon  this  con- 
clusion, connecting  correct  calculations  with  fantastic  dreams. 

I  close  my  lecture,  although  it  would  be  very  easy  for  me  to  point  out 
numerous  other  contradictions  to  be  found  in  the  present  suppositions. 

I  wish  that  an  astronomer,  equipped  with  more  perfect  knowledge  and 
modern  instruments,  would  continue  developing  the  system  of  Tycho  de 
Brahe.  The  final  result  would  certainly  be  grand,  and  many  a  thing  would 
appear  simple  and  clear  that  became  dark  after  the  advent  of  the  Copernican 
system,  contradicting  all  the  laws  of  nature  which  we  know.  The  esteemed 
astronomer,  Bandes,  has  already  said  of  Tycho's  system  :  "This  system  seems 
to  have  more  truth  in  itself — nay,  the  single  phenomena  may  be  demonstrated 
very  easily  with  it."  He  means,  however,  that  it  contradicts  the  laws  of 
attraction.  This  objection,  however,  I  believe  I  have  done  away  with,  and 
have  clearly  shown  that  the  Copernican  system  itself  is  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  laws  of  attraction. 

It  has  not  been  the  author's  intention  to  present  a  complete  theory  in 
this  lecture.  He  confesses  his  inability  for  it,  and  desired  only  to  give 
impulse  to  new  investigations.  But  he  thinks  himself  entitled  to  the  hope 
that  some  astronomer  will  at  least  free  himself  from  cold  superciliousness 
and  go  on  building  upon  the  basis  given.  For  such  a  sincere  scholar  I  add 
here  a  few  out  of  the  number  of  rich  data  which  have  been  carelessly  dis- 
regarded. 


20 

1.  The  forms  of  our  continents  contradict  the  hypothesis  of  the  rotation 
of  the  earth.     Were  there  such  a  rotation,  these  formations  would  have  been 
built  up  in  the  main  directions,  from  east  to  west ;  whereas,  in  reality,  we  find 
their  longitudinal  development  from  north  to  south.     Again,  the  larger  lati- 
tudes of  the  north  only  point  to  the  attractive  force  of  the  north  [magnetic] 
pole,  the  points  looking  southward  indicating  the  repulsive  power  of  the 
south  [magnetic]  pole. 

2.  That  there  are  no  fixed  stars  proper  has  been  demonstrated  by  the 
peculiar  orbital  motions  which  those  fixed  stars  have  in  addition  to  their 
daily  course  about  the  earth.    The  astronomers  have  therefore  sought  in  vain 
for  a  central  body,  the  attraction  of  which  would  keep  those  stars  in  their 
course.     But  there  must  be  such  a  central  body,  and  it  must  be  our  earth. 
It  may  also  result  from  this  that,  corresponding  to  the  greater  formation  of 
continents  upon  the  northern  hemisphere,   the  greater  number  of  stars  is 
found  on  the  northern  half  of  the  heavens. 

3.  Various  changes  have  been  observed  in  many  of  the  fixed  stars,  especi- 
ally a  change  of  colors  and  of   intensity  of  light  (a  sudden  coming,  and 
a  going  as  sudden,  of  single  stars),  which  cannot  be  brought  into  harmony 
with  the  supposition  that  they  are  such  large  and  independent  bodies  as  has 
hitherto  been  believed. 

4.  The  uniformities  of  the  parts  of  all  meteorites — i.  e.,  of  heavenly 
bodies  dragged  to  the  earth  by  its  attraction — allows  us  a  conclusion  upon 
the  nature  of  celestial  bodies  in  general,  and  demonstrates  that  they  cannot 
be  habitable.     The  greatest  meteorites  of  which  we  know  had  a  diameter  of 
from  7  to  7%  feet. 

5.  According  to  Wilhelm  Mahlmann's  careful   calculation,  there  is  an 
air-current  west-south-west,  prevailing  in  the  middle  latitudes  of  the  tern, 
perate  zone  ;  hence  there  are,  after  all,  prevailing  west  winds,  whereas  east 
winds  should  prevail,  upon  the  theory  of  the  rotation  of  the  earth. 

6.  As  my  next  treatise  is  to  bring  out  the  evidence  that  the   Mosaic 
version  of  the  creation  harmonizes  with  the  truth,  and  as  the  only  objection 
made  to  me  as  yet  respecting  the  rotation  of  the  earth  is  the  pretended 
agreement  of  the  learned,  I  therefore  quote  here  in  conclusion  a  few  words 
of  Goethe.    This  poet,  whose  prophetic  glances  into  nature  were  completely 
disregarded  during  his  lifetime,  says  : 

"  Be  it  as  it  may,  it  must  be  laid  down  that  I  curse  the  accursed  lumber- 
room  of  this  modern  conception  ;  and  certainly  some  young,  ingenious  man 
will  arise  who  has  the  courage  to  oppose  this  universal,  crazy  nonsense. 
The  repeated  assurance  which  all  natural  philosophers  have  had  in  this  same 
conviction  is  the  most  outrageous  thing  you  can  hear.  He,  however,  who 
knows  men  knows  how  this  happens.  Good,  able,  keen  brains  make  up  such 
an  opinion  on  the  basis  of  probability  ;  they  assembly  proselytes  and  disci- 
ples ;  such  a  mass  gains  literary  power ;  one  magnifies  the  opinion,  exagger- 
ates it,  and  carries  it  out  with  a  certain  passionate  excitement ;  hundreds  and 


21 

hundreds  of  well-thinking  normal  men,  who  are  active  in  other  branches  and 
also  wish  to  see  lively  working  in  their  surroundings,  honored  and  respected — 
what  can  they  do  better  and  wiser  than  to  give  these  ample  scope,  and  to 
consent  to  what  is  not  their  business?  And  this  is  then  called  general  agree- 
ment of  scholars  !  " 


THE  BIBLICAL-TYCHONIC 

vs. 

THE  NEWTONIAN-COPERNICAN   SYSTEM. 


TVCHONIC  SYSTEM  OR  THEORY. 

General  JOHN  WATTS  DE  PEYSTER, 

Rose  Hill,  Red  Hook  Township,  Duchess  Co. 

Tivoli  P.  O.,  New  York. 
MY  DEAR  GENERAL: 

The  lecture  of  the  German,  Dr.  Scheopffer,  which  you  have  obtained  from 
abroad  and  of  which  you  propose  to  print  an  English  translation,  certainly  is 
remarkable.  This  assault  upon  the  Copernican  and  Newtonian  theories  was 
originally  delivered  and  published  in  1854.  Since  that  time  a  small  army  of 
astronomers  diligently  have  prosecuted  investigation  to  perfect  the  accepted 
hypothesis.  Therefore  we  naturally  expect  Dr.  Schoepffer's  arguments  to 
appear  peurile  in  the  light  of  present  knowledge,  even  if  they  seemed  plaus- 


22 

ible  half  a  century  ago.  But,  strange  to  say,  instead  of  a  development  of 
facts  which  renders  Dr.  Schoepffer's  position  ridiculous,  the  new  data  in 
nearly  every  instance  tend  to  justify  his  skepticism.  His  main  arguments, 
formidable  as  they  stand,  and  hitherto  unanswered,  may  now  be  notably 
fortified,  while  many  new  counts  may  be  added  to  his  strong  indictment  of 
the  current  theory. 

As  you  know,  ere  I  had  heard  of  Dr.  Schoepffer,  his  lecture,  or  his  views, 
I  had  become  a  confirmed  skeptic  concerning  the  supposed  infallibility  of 
Newton's  demonstration  of  the  Copernican  theory,  and  indeed  had  lost  all  con- 
fidence in  the  truth  of  the  Copernican  hypothesis.  Having  been  transformed 
from  a  religious  agnostic  of  the  hostile  type  into  a  believer  in  the  verbal 
inspiration  of  Scripture,  I  was  led  to  examine  astronomical  theories  by  the 
insinuation  of  certain  rabid  "  scientists"  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  certain 
"  higher  critics "  on  the  other,  that  the  astronomical  theories  of  the  Bible 
and  of  modern  science  were  irreconcilable,  while  infallibility  here  certainly 
lay  with  modern  science,  demonstrating  the  fallibility  of  Scripture  as  a  guide 
on  such  a  point  at  least. 

From  a  careful  study  of  the  Bible  I  ascertained  the  following  facts  : 
(i)  That  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Testament  alike  teach  by  infer- 
ence, with  some  dogmatic  statements  on  the  subject,  a  certain  astronomical 
scheme  ;  (2)  That  all  Biblical  references  to  astronomical  facts  are  undeviat- 
ingly  consistent  in  implying  this  astronomical  system  and  no  other ;  (3)  That 
any  person  left  to  gather  his  astronomical  ideas  from  the  Bible  alone  would 
necessarily  imbibe  a  belief  in  this  particular  scheme  ;  (4)  That  the  Biblical 
system  treats  the  phenomenal,  or  apparent,  movements  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  as  the  actual  movements  of  those  bodies  ;  (5)  That  the  Bible  repre- 
sents the  physical  universe  as  having  been  definitely  designed  by  God  as  a 
revelation  of  Himself  and  His  ways  by  means  of  object-lessons  ;  and  (6)  That 
in  all  instances  of  Scriptural  reference  to  the  heavenly  bodies  or  the  earth, 
as  physical  types  of  moral  truths,  the  object-lesson  is  ever  found  in  the 
phenomenal  appearance  of  things.  Scripture  citing  the  phenomenal  appear- 
ance as  the  physical  fact. 

And  is  this  astronomical  scheme  of  Scripture  crude  and  primitive  ?  So 
one  would  imagine  from  the  cheap  learning  everywhere  abounding  which 
sweeps  the  Bible  aside,  with  a  magnificent  flourish  of  intellectual  superiority 
over  Christian  faith,  on  the  ground  that  its  fallibility  is  fully  exposed  in  its 
astronomy  !  But  what  is  the  fact  ?  Even  the  Ptolemaic  theory  of  the 
universal  mechanism  has  been  justly  commended  for  its  ingenuity  in  explain- 
ing observed  phenomena,  while  the  Biblical  system  is  infinitely  superior  to 
that  perfected  by  Ptolemy  and  his  followers,  judged  in  the  light  of  present 
knowledge.  I  say  "  infinitely"  superior  because  Ptolemy's  scheme,  ingenious 
as  it  is,  is  absolutely  inadmissible  in  the  light  of  the  facts  now  known,  while 
all  astronomers  are  compelled  to  admit  that  the  system  implied  in  Scripture 
accounts  for  all  the  observed  phenomena  as  competently  as  does  the  Coper- 


nican  hypothesis.  In  other  words,  Scripture  assumes  the  truth  of  the  so-called 
Tychonic  conception  of  the  physical  universe. 

The  scheme  of  Tycho  Brahe  rejects  the  postulates  of  the  daily  rotation 
of  the  earth  upon  its  axis  and  of  its  annual  revolution  about  the  sun,  making 
the  earth  the  stationary  centre  of  the  physical  universe.  He  accepted  as  real 
the  apparent  daily  revolutions  of  sun,  moon  and  star-sphere  about  the  earth, 
the  sun  also  having  an  annual  movement  in  the  heavens  between  the  celestial 
tropics,  causing  the  changing  seasons.  The  planetary  movements  were 
accounted  for  as  in  the  Copernican  system — the  planets  moving  in  orbits 
about  the  sun,  the  orbits  of  Venus  and  Mercury  passing  between  the  sun 
and  earth,  the  orbits  of  the  other  planets  passing  outside  the  space  between 
the  sun  and  the  earth,  the  radii  of  the  orbits  of  these  outer  planets  much 
exceeding  the  distance  between  the  sun  and  the  earth. 

"All  the  observed  movements,  and  all  the  peculiarities  of  the  observed 
relations,  were  fully  explained  by  this  system,"  wrote  the  late  Prof.  R.  A. 
Proctor,  who  was  perhaps  the  most  dogmatic  champion  of  Newtonian-Coper- 
nican  orthodoxy  among  astronomers  of  standing,  as  well  as  the  most  virulent 
in  applying  it  to  discredit  the  Bible.*  In  the  same  connection  he  further 
wrote  :  "It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  Tycho's  system  is  ...  fully  equal  to 
the  Copernican  in  its  fitness  to  explain  the  observed  relations."!  And  he 
added  that,  until  the  probabilities  in  favor  of  the  Copernican  theory  were 
strengthened  by  Newton's  hypothesis  of  universal  attraction,  "the  arguments 
for  the  Tychonic  system,  modified  so  as  to  correspond  to  Kepler's  discovery 
of  the  shapes  of  the  different  orbits,  were  almost  equal  in  weight  to  those 
used  by  the'  disciples  of  Copernicus.  The  slight  advantage  of  the  Coper- 
nican system  in  point  of  simplicity  was  counterbalanced  by  the  difficulty  of 
accepting,  in  those  days,  the  belief  that  the  stars  lie  at  so  inconceivably  vast 
a  distance  that  the  motion  of  the  earth  in  an  enormous  orbit  around  the  sun 
(for  the  sun  was  known  even  then  to  lie  many  millions  of  miles  from  us) 
produces  no  perceptible  change  in  the  appearance  and  rotation  of  the  star- 
sphere.  That  the  whole  span  of  the  earth's  orbit  [now  computed  as  186,- 
000,000  miles]  was  as  a  mere  point  compared  with  the  distance  of  the  stars, 
so  that  the  earth  on  one  side  of  the  sun  was,  in  effect,  at  the  centre  of  the 
star-sphere,  while  it  was  equally  at  the  centre  when  on  the  opposite  side,  or 
many  millions  of  miles  from  the  former  position,  was  not  unreasonably 
regarded  by  Tycho  Brahe  as  scarcely  credible."! 

In  almost  every  reliable  treatise  on  astronomy  can  be  found  a  similar 
acknowledgment  of  the  adequacy  of  the  Tychonic  system,  and  hence  of  that 
of  the  Bible.  How  fully  "equal  in  weight"  to  the  arguments  for  the  Coper- 
nican theory  were  those  for  the  Tychonic  theory  is  well  demonstrated  by  the 
fact  that  in  the  presence  of  the  arguments  on  both  sides  the  Copernican 

*  Article,  "  Astronomy."     Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  gth  ed.,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  777-8. 
t  Ibid.  %  Ibid. 


24 

theory  had  few  supporters  among  the  best  intellects,  down  to  the  time 
when  the  astronomical  priestcraft  dogmatically  prohibited  dissent,  for  all  who 
were  unwilling  to  imperil  their  reputation  for  sanity,  by  the  Newtonian 
assumption  of  an  infallible  mathematical  demonstration  which  neither  ordi- 
nary laymen  nor  even  the  majority  of  scholars  were  capable  of  testing  for 
themselves. 

But,  however  this  may  be,  we  here  have  the  virtual  confession  even  of  so 
rabid  a  disciple  of  Copernicus  as  Professor  Proctor,  that  it  is  Newton's  postulate 
of  universal  attraction  which  alone  has  given  the  Copernican  theory  a  greatly 
preponderating  claim  upon  our  credence.  Hence,  if  it  should  finally  transpire 
that  the  Copernican  theory  must  stand  without  the  help  of  Newton's  theory,  if 
at  all,  even  so  rabid  a  disciple  of  Copernicus  as  Professor  Proctor  would  have 
justified  us  in  turning  back  to  consider  seriously  the  Tychonic  theory,  as  one 
in  favor  of  which,  on  the  confession  even  of  its  opponents,  nearly  as  much 
can  be  said  as  may  be  said  for  the  Copernican  theory  !  And  if  a  disciple  of 
Copernicus  must  admit  so  much  in  favor  of  the  rival  view  at  the  outset, 
what  might  not  a  disciple  of  Tycho,  and  still  more  a  student  of  scripture, 
discover  in  favor  of  the  Biblical  view  ?  But  will  it  be  said  that  there  is  little 
likelihood  that  the  Copernican  theory  will  be  forced  to  establish  its  claims  on 
some  other  basis  than  the  postulate  of  universal  gravitation  ?  In  reply, 
I  present  the  following  points : 

I.  Some  of  the  best  mathematical  astronomers  are  beginning  to  deny 
that  Newton's  law  of  gravitation  is  a  real  mathematical  expression  of  the 
attractive  forces  of  nature.  For  example,  G.  W.  Myers,  of  the  University 
of  Illinois,  contributes  to  Popular  Astronomy  (January,  1898)  an  English 
translation  of  the  interesting  paper  "On  Newton's  Law  of  Gravitation"  by 
Prof.  H.  Seeliger,  of  Munich,  Germany,  in  which  this  fatal  defect  in 
Newton's  law  is  conceded.  This  paper  was  originally  published  in  the 
"  Proceedings  of  the  Bavarian  Academy,"  November,  1897.  The  kernel  of 
Dr.  Seeliger's  criticism  is  found  in  the  following  extract  from  Mr.  Myers' 
translation : 

"About  two  years  ago  [in  '  Ueber  das  Newton'sche  Gravitation-Gesetz  '] 
I  drew  attention  to  certain  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  attempt  to  extend 
Newton's  law  of  gravitation  to  infinite  space.  The  considerations  then 
adduced  showed  the  necessity  of  choosing  between  two  hypotheses,  viz.  : 
I.  The  sum  total  of  the  masses  of  the  universe  is  infinitely  great,  in  which 
case  Newton's  law  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  mathematically  exact  expression 
for  the  attractive  forces  in  operation,  z.  The  Newtonian  law  is  rigorously 
exact,  in  which  case  the  infinite  spaces  of  the  universe  cannot  be  filled  with 
matter  of  finite  density.  Inasmuch  as  I  am  wholly  unable  to  find  adequate 
reasons  for  the  second  of  these  assumptions,  I  have,  in  another  place,  decided 
in  favor  of  the  first.  Since  reaching  this  conclusion,  it  has  come  to  my 
knowledge  that  Carl  Neumann  [ '  Allgemeine  Untersuchungen  ueber  das 
Newton'sche  Prinzip,"  &c.,  Leipzig,  1896,  p.  i]  had  called  attention  still 


25 

earlier  to  difficulties  of  a  similar  kind  which  may  be  regarded,  in  a  sense, 
as  special  cases  of  the  arguments  I  brought  forward.  The  concurrence  of 
so  prominent  a  scientist,  as  also  the  circumstance  that  the  considerations 
adduced  by  myself  are  expressible  in  another  form  without  essential  modi- 
fication of  their  contents,  may  perhaps  make  a  return  to  this  subject  seem 
superfluous.  But  it  appears  to  me  the  entire  question  is  so  fraught  with 
significance  for  the  whole  of  theoretical  astronomy  as  to  merit  thorough- 
going and  perspicuous  treatment. 

"  The  problen  under  treatment  has  some  points  of  resemblance  to  another 
well-known  question.  Cheseaux,  and  after  him  Olbers,  propounded  the 
question  as  to  why  the  average  brightness  of  the  celestial  vault  is  so  very 
small,  whereas  it  should  be  comparable  with  solar  brightness,  if  the  number 
of  luminous  bodies  in  the  universe  be  assumed  infinitely  large.  It  seems  all 
the  more  desirable  to  treat  this  problem  more  fundamentally  than  was  for- 
merly done,  since,  by  so  doing,  it  appears  that  Olbers'  conclusions  [in  support 
of  current  theory]  are  far  from  being  entirely  free  from  objection.  Olbers 
explains  the  seeming  paradox,  as  is  well  known,  by  the  extinction  of  light 
in  interstellar  spaces.  The  permissibility  of  this  assumption  cannot  of  course 
be  contested  [?]  ;  its  necessity,  however,  does  not  by  any  means  follow  from 
an  unbiased  study  of  the  question." 

II.  Professor  Seeliger,  according  to  Mr.  Myers'  translation,  gives  Pro- 
fessor Neumann's  reduction  of  Newton's  law  to  an  absurdity  in  the  premises 
at  issue,  concluding  with  the  remark : 

"This  is  the  example  which  Carl  Neumann  adduces.  He  correctly 
designates  the  demonstrated  consequence  of  Newton's  law  as  absurd,  and 
concludes  from  it  that  the  law  of  attraction  leads  to  contradictions  in  the  case 
of  an  homogenous  distribution  of  matter." 

Thus,  according  to  these  authorities,  Newton's  law  of  gravitation  is 
irreconcilable  with  the  theory  of  the  existence  of  a  substantial  ether  in  space 
and  between  the  molecules  of  bodies  —  an  all-pervading  ether  consisting  of 
the  ultimate  atoms  of  matter.  But  a  hopeless  clash  here  necessitates  the 
abandonment  of  the  doctrine  of  universal  attraction,  under  the  peril  of 
utterly  wrecking  the  basis  of  theory  underlying  every  ramification  of  the 
existing  structure  of  physical  science.  For  example,  how  is  the  scientist  to 
conceive  of  radiant  energy  manifesting  itself  in  space  as  heat,  light,  chem- 
ical force  and  electrical  force,  if  there  be  not  an  all-pervading  substantial 
medium  to  be  operated  upon?  How  are  we  to  explain  the  now  all-important 
doctrine  of  the  conservation  of  energy,  if  there  be  not  everywhere  the  medium 
to  receive  and  transmit  kinetic  energy  ? 

III.  The  dynamical  theory  of  matter  (though  I  do  not  commit  myself  to 
it,  being  an  agnostic  on  most  of  these  questions,  where  not  an  open  sceptic) 
certainly   seems    far   more   rational,    as    the   basic    explanation   of    physical 
phenomena,  than  the  theory  of  universal  attraction,  as  lending  itself  equally 
to  the  explanation  of  all  the  manifestations  of  radiant  energy  where  these 


26 

phenomena  exist,  and  to  the  phenomenon  of  attraction  where  this  exists  ; 
while  to  an  unprejudiced  mind  the  dynamical  theory  of  matter,  as  formulated 
by  Lord  Kelvin,  seems  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  theory  of  universal 
attraction.  For  can  we  conceive  of  the  ultimate  atoms  as  a  vortex-move- 
ment everywhere  in  space,  with  the  freedom  for  this,  and  at  the  same  time 
conceive  of  this  as  the  result  of  a  universal  law  of  mutual  attraction  ? 
Or,  if  universal  gravitation  be  not  applied  to  the  ultimate  atoms,  it  were 
more  rational  to  throw  this  awkward  hypothesis  aside  as  useless  lumber, 
and  substitute  for  it  the  theory  of  radiant  energy,  joining  together  the  phe- 
nomena of  attraction  and  repulsion,  with  heat,  light,  chemical  force  and 
electrical  force,  as  all  alike  resultants  of  radiant  energy. 

IV.  Spite  of  the  herculean  efforts  in  the  domain  of  mathematical,  or 
theoretical  astronomy,  Professor  Asaph  Hall,  the  well-known  American 
astronomer,  who  enjoys  the  distinction  of  having  discovered  the  two  satel- 
lites of  Mars,  also  concedes  the  inability  of  astronomers  at  the  present  time 
to  account  for  all  the  observed  phenomena  on  the  basis  of  Newtonian  hypo- 
thesis. He  further  concedes  that  many  of  the  problems  which  in  the  first 
half  of  the  present  century  were  thought  to  have  been  mathematically  solved 
on  the  basis  of  Newton's  postulate,  are  now  proved  not  to  have  been  so — 
which  is  a  concession  that  the  claim  of  the  attainment  of  mathematical 
infallibility,  imposed  upon  the  public  by  astronomers  during  the  first  half 
of  the  century,  was  really  an  audacious  assumption,  raised  upon  foundations 
many  of  which  have  already  crumbled  !  He  says  : 

"Laplace  devoted  his  life  to  the  study  of  celestial  mechanics.  In  his 
great  work  on  this  subject  he  undertook  the  solution  of  all  the  problems  con- 
nected with  the  theory  of  the  planets.  Their  motions  are  divided  naturally 
into  two  parts.  Some  of  the  changes  are  periodical,  and  the  planets  return 
after  a  few  years  to  their  former  positions.  But  others  run  through  long 
periods  of  time ;  and  these  changes  produce  great  alterations  in  the  orbits. 
Such  are  the  great  variations  in  the  eccentricity  of  the  earth's  orbit,  and 
obliquity  of  the  ecliptic,  which  are  thought  by  some  to  have  been  the  cause 
of  the  glacial  epoch  on  the  surface  of  the  earth.  These  changes  are  very 
important.  They  were  carefully  examined  by  Lagrange  and  Laplace,  who 
proved,  as  they  thought,  that  our  solar  system  is  stable,  and  that  the  great 
secular  changes  will  come  and  go  through  very  long  intervals  of  time, 
amounting  to  tens  and  even  hundreds  of  thousands  of  years,  but  that  the 
orbits  will  again  come  back  to  their  former  shapes  and  positions.  Seventy 
years  ago,  when  Laplace  died  in  1827,  it  was  thought  by  many  astronomers 
that  nothing  remained  to  be  done  in  celestial  mechanics  but  to  correct  the 
coefficients  in  the  formulas  of  the  '  Mechanique  Celeste.'  But  the  passing 
years  have  changed  all  that,  and  parts  of  theory  have  to  be  worked  over 
anew.  .  .  . 

"  Laplace  undertook  to  show  how  the  arrangement  of  the  Creator  might 
be  improved.  He  says :  '  If  at  the  origin  the  Moon  had  been  placed  in 


27 

opposition  to  the  Sun,  and  at  nearly  four  times  its  present  distance,  and 
the  Earth  and  Moon  had  been  started  with  parallel  motions  proportional  to 
their  distances  from  the  Sun,  the  Moon  would  always  have  remained  a  full 
Moon,  and  thus  would  have  replaced  the  light  of  the  Sun.'  Unfortunately 
for  Laplace  the  condition  he  has  imagined  is  unstable,  and  at  the  slightest 
disturbance  we  should  have  lost  our  Moon.  We  are  tempted  to  apply  to 
Laplace  one  of  his  own  mottoes :  '  Opinionem  commenta  delet  dies,  natura: 
jitdicia  confirmat ' — '  Time  destroys  the  fictions  of  opinion,  and  confirms  the 
decisions  of  nature.' 

"Time,  in  fact,  which  tests  all  things  so  severely,  has  shown  that  some 
of  the  results  of  theoretical  astronomy  are  erroneous,  and  that  others  must 
be  extended  and  completed.  Thus  the  stability  of  our  solar  system  was  not 
proved,  as  was  supposed,  and  although  it  would  be  wrong  to  call  it  unstable, 
yet  the  mathematical  proofs  given  by  Lagrange,  Laplace  and  Poisson  are 
not  complete.  Also  the  very  important  part  of  the  changes  of  our  solar 
system  which  are  called  secular,  because  they  run  through  long  periods  of 
time,  need  to  be  examined  again.  With  our  present  formulas  we  can  not 
go  backward  or  forward  from  our  epoch  with  certainty  for  more  than  a  few 
centuries,  and  the  improvement  of  these  methods  is  an  important  and  difficult 
question.  The  Swedish  astronomer,  Hugo  Glyden,  who  died  a  few  months 
ago,  was  engaged  on  this  problem. 

"  But  there  is  another  source  of  difficulty  in  the  planetary  motions  which 
the  lapse  of  time  is  developing.  While  the  Newtonian  law  of  universal 
attraction  represents  the  observations  so  well  that  it  must  be  a  real  law  of 
nature,  yet  there  are  indications  of  small  forces  which  cause  deviations  from 
the  principal  force.  Evidence  of  such  a  force  is  seen  in  the  formation  of  the 
tails  of  comets  when  they  approach  the  sun,  since  the  particles  appear  to  be 
thrown  off  by  a  repulsive  force,  and  we  have  here  a  new  condition.  There 
is  also  the  question  of  a  resisting  medium  in  the  planetary  spaces.  For  many 
years  it  was  thought  that  the  existence  of  such  a  medium  was  shown  by  the 
motion  of  Encke's  comet,  but  recent  investigations  have  pretty  much  over- 
thrown this  idea,  since  the  change  in  the  orbit  of  the  comet  does  not  corre- 
spond to  an  acceleration  of  the  motion,  such  as  would  result  from  a  resisting 
medium.  We  are  thrown  back,  therefore,  on  an  unknown  cause  to  account 
for  these  changes.  The  motion  of  our  moon  has  been  the  subject  of  some 
of  the  most  laborious  researches  ever  urfdertaken  in  astronomy.  The  moon's 
motion  is  so  rapid  that  any  inaccuracy  in  its  theory  will  soon  appear.  A  good 
knowledge  of  this  motion  is  closely  connected  with  the  art  of  navigation,  and 
the  English  government  has  expended  large  sums  of  money  to  perfect  the 
lunar  tables.  But  the  last  tables,  computed,  by  Hansen  forty  years  ago,  are 
now  so  much  in  error  that  it  is  necessary  to  correct  them  by  an  empirical 
method,  since  no  defect  has  been  found  in  theory.  Delaunay  devoted  fifteen 
years  of  steady  work  to  the  motion  of  the  moon,  and  produced  the  best  theory 
we  have  ;  but  the  puzzling  thing  is  that  he  agrees  remarkably  well  with  Han- 


28 

sen,  who  pursued  a  very  different  method,  and  is  certainly  wrong.  There 
is  another  theoretical  mystery.  Another  disturbance  of  this  kind  was  found 
by  Leverrier  forty  years  ago  in  the  motion  of  the  planet  Mercury,  and  his 
result  has  been  confirmed  by  the  recent  investigations  of  Professor  Newcomb. 
The  major  axis  of  this  planet  is  moving  faster  than  it  ought  from  the  action 
of  the  known  forces.  In  this  case  it  is  is  very  certain  there  is  no  defect  in 
the  theory,  and  we  are  obliged  to  search  for  a  force  that  can  produce  this 
motion."  * 

V.  The  explanation  of  such  remarkable  language  is  involved  in  my  next 
count.  Why  is  it  that,  in  the  presence  of  the  discrepancies  which  he  points 
out,  the  best  reason  Professor  Hall  can  give  for  still  accepting  the  Newtonian 
law  is  the  surprisingly  weak  one  that  "the  Newtonian  law  of  universal 
attraction  represents  the  observations  so  well  that  it  must  be  a  real  law  of 
nature  ?  "  Because  he  is  too  well  aware  that  this  Newtonian  representation 
of  the  observations  has  been  approximated  on  a  basis  which  could  not  be 
considered  a  mathematical  demonstration  of  the  operation  of  gravitation, 
even  were  it  a  perfect  success,  and  no  discrepancies  in  sight !  In  other 
words,  had  Laplace  been  so  permanently  successful  as  he  supposed  and 
hoped,  the  question  would  remain  whether  Newton's  law  had  been  adjusted 
to  the  real  facts  of  nature,  or  whether  supposed  conditions  in  nature  had 
not  been  in  many  cases  "assumed"  to  fit  the  requirements  of  theory  ;  and, 
if  this  last  were  not  the  case,  the  question  would  remain  whether  Newton's 
law  is  the  mathematical  expression  of  gravitation  or  of  some  other  force  in 
nature  which  actually  performs  the  work  in  the  solar  system  credited  to 
gravitation. 

What  was  the  situation  when  Newton  undertook  his  solution  of  celestial 
mechanics  ?  Tycho  Brahe  had  amassed  a  record  of  observations  which  pre- 
sented nearly  all  the  main  phenomena  to  lie  accounted  for,  from  which 
Kepler  had  surmised  the  fact  that  the  planetary  orbits  are  elliptical,  and  had 
deduced  his  three  laws  of  planetary  movement.  Galileo  had  formulated  his 
two  laws  of  motion,  having  investigated  the  phenomena  of  falling  bodies  at 
the  earth's  surface.  It  now  occurred  to  Newton  that  the  attraction  of  the 
earth  might  be  a  local  manifestation  of  a  universal  phenomenon,  which  would 
thus  be  the  controlling  principle  of  the  solar  system  ;  and  he  undertook  to 
demonstrate  the  possibility  that  the  laws  of  falling  bodies  at  the  earth's  sur- 
face might  explain  the  celestial  phenomena.  To  this  end  he  formulated  his 
very  convenient  law  of  motion  —  that  action  and  reaction  are  equal  and  in 
opposite  directions — which  to  an  ingenious  mind  would  afford  ways  of  escape 
in  the  presence  of  almost  any  conceivable  phenomena.  The  problem  before 
him  was  this :  Could  he,  by  assuming  for  the  respective  heavenly  bodies  any 
distances,  sizes,  densities,  masses  and  velocities  convenient  for  his  purpose, 
that  were  not  demonstrably  inappropriate  to  the  observed  phenomena,  show 

*  "A  Sketch  of  Theoretical  Astronomy."  Popular  Astronomy,  May,  1897  (Vol.  V., 
No.  I.,  pp.  9-16). 


29 

that  the  application  of  the  laws  of  falling  bodies  at  the  earth's  surface  would 
approximately  explain  the  planetary  movements  and  similar  celestial  phe- 
nomena? I  do  not  mean  to  undervalue  the  difficulties  of  this  problem. 
Even  with  the  privilege  of  adjusting  so  many  elements  of  the  problem  to 
suit  the  theory,  the  complicated  elements  of  observed  phenomena  which 
could  not  be  so  adjusted  were  so  formidable  that  it  remained  a  stupendous 
undertaking  in  higher  mathematics,  so  that  the  "  Mechanique  Celeste,"  in 
which  La  Place  systematized  the  results  of  the  mathematical  labors  of  him- 
self and  his  predecessors,  is  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  monument  which 
the  human  reason  has  ever  erected  as  an  evidence  of  its  powers.  Still,  the 
fact  remains  that  had  time  disclosed  no  discrepancies  and  inadequacies  in 
this  solution,  when  compared  with  the  present  records  of  observations,  it  yet 
would  constitute  only  a  possible  solution,  and  not  a  mathematical  demonstra- 
tion, until  such  time  as  the  assumptions  of  distances,  sizes,  densities,  masses 
and  velocities  in  the  solution  could  by  some  independent  means  be  demon- 
strated as  really  those  of  nature.  And  were  this  done,  there  would  still  be 
a  possibility  that  the  mathematical  formula  was  really  that  of  some  unknown 
force,  instead  of  gravitation. 

But  have  astronomers  made  this  plain  to  the  general  public?  An  exam- 
ination of  treatises  rather  exhibits  a  studious  avoidance  of  frankness  here, 
while  the  intent  to  deceive  the  ignorant  certainly  appears  to  characterize 
some  works,  which  yet  do  not  technically  commit  themselves.  It  is  this  fact 
which  justifies  one  in  speaking  of  an  astronomical  priestcraft,  which  has 
acquired  a  reputation  for  scientific  infallibility  and  an  authority  over  the 
human  mind  which  have  no  justification  in  actual  achievements.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  excepting  mathematical  astronomers  themselves,  even  the  most  learned 
among  men  for  the  most  part  necessarily  rest  their  belief  in  the  current  astro- 
nomical theory,  together  with  whatever  system  of  philosophy  of  life  they  build 
up  from  this  foundation,  upon  a  confidence  in  the  infallibility  of  professional 
astronomers  as  blind  and  helpless  as  that  of  the  most  infatuated  religious 
devotee  in  the  priestcraft  which  gives  him  a  false  religion.  Indeed,  one  reason 
why  scientists  now  speak  so  plainly  and  unguardedly  to  one  another  of  the 
shortcomings  of  theory,  through  the  medium  of  books  and  periodicals  access- 
ible to  the  general  public,  seems  to  be  their  sense  of  perfect  security — the 
feeling  that  the  battle  has  been  won,  with  the  popular  submission  to  "  science  " 
so  far  advanced  that  there  is  no  fear  of  a  revolt,  even  when  the  Quaker  guns 
which  have  won  the  victory  are  plainly  unmasked  !  Is  such  a  remark  unjust? 
To  justify  it  I  need  but  marshal  another  extract  from  the  very  article  of 
Professor  Asaph  Hall  just  cited  ;  for  his  introductory  remarks  include  the 
following  : 

' '  Theoretical  astronomy  has  gained  so  secure  a  foundation,  and  its  results 
are  so  generally  accepted,  that  the  trials  and  tribulations  of  astronomers  are 
matters  of  the  past.  They  can  now  look  on  in  quietness,  and  with  compla- 
cency, while  theologians  charge  each  other  with  heresies.  .  .  .  This  change 


30 

has  been  firmly  established  by  the  discovery  of  the  law  which -governs  the 
motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies."  * 

Are  these  introductory  remarks  Professor  Hall's  justification  to  his  fellow 
astronomers,  in  view  of  his  temerity  in  discussing  the  deficiencies  of  astro- 
nomical orthodoxy  in  a  tongue  within  the  comprehension  of  laymen  ?  Yet 
even  if  he  does  not  fear,  one  would  suppose  he  would  at  least  blush  for  his 
profession,  in  thus  exposing  to  the  public  the  weakness  of  astronomical  pre- 
tensions on  the  very  point  in  virtue  of  which  astronomers  have  lifted  them- 
selves into  Moses'  seat  of  authority  and  infallibility  !  A  similar  temerity, 
displayed  in  frank  expression  of  weakness  in  the  presence  of  the  subdued 
enemy,  characterizes  Professor  Karl  Pearson's  well-known  "Grammar  of 
Science."  The  passage  is  worth  quoting  here,  and  especially  so  as  any 
reader  of  the  book  can  testify  with  what  an  animus  its  author  recommends 
for  study,  as  examples  of  sophistry,  famous  books  which  argue  the  reason- 
ableness of  supernatural  religion : 

"  No  one  who  knows  the  author's  views,  or  who  reads,  indeed,  this  book, 
will  believe  that  he  holds  the  labor  of  the  great  scientists  or  the  mission  of 
modern  science  to  be  of  small  account.  If  the  reader  finds  the  opinions  of 
physicists-of  world-wide  reputation,  and  the  current  definitions  of  physical 
concepts  called  into  question,  he  must  not  attribute  this  to  a  purely  sceptical 
spirit  in  the  author.  He  accepts  almost  without  reserve  the  great  results  of 
modern  physics ;  it  is  the  language  in  which  these  results  are  stated  that  he 
believes  needs  reconsideration.  This  reconsideration  is  the  more  urgent 
because  the  language  of  physics  is  widely  used  in  all  branches  of  biological 
(including  sociological)  science.  The  obscurity  which  envelops  the  principia 
of  science  is  not  only  due  to  an  historical  evolution  marked  by  the  authority 
of  great  names,  but  to  the  fact  that  science,  as  long  as  it  had  to  carry  on  a 
difficult  warfare  with  metaphysics  and  dogma,  like  a  skillful  general  con- 
ceived it  best  to  hide  its  own  deficient  organization.  There  can  be  small 
doubt,  however,  that  this  deficient  organization  will  not  only  in  time  be  per- 
ceived by  the  enemy,  but  that  it  has  already  had  a  very  discouraging  influence 
both  on  scientific  recruits  and  on  intelligent  laymen.  Anything  more  hope- 
lessly illogical  than  the  statements  with  regard  to  force  and  matter  current 
in  elementary  text-books  of  science,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine."  f 

If  this  amazing  confession  of  scientific  Jesuitism  had  come  as  a  charge 
from  me,  I  suppose  I  should  have  been  denounced  as  a  rank  traducer ! 


At  this  point  I  will  suspend  the  cataloguing  of  objections  to  the  New- 
tonian theory,  in  order  to  show  the  plausibility  of  the  Biblical -Tychonic 
theory,  that  the  reader  may  realize  how  rational  an  alternative  is  offered  him. 
Already  it  is  apparent,  on  the  testimony  of  eminent  disciples  of  Copernicus 

*  Ibid. 

t  "  Grammar  of  Science."     New  York  :  Charles  Scribner's  Sons.     1892.     Pp.  vii.,  viii. 


31 

and  Newton,  that  (l)  the  Tychonic  theory  is  in  itself  as  competent,  and  very 
nearly  as  credible  as  the  Copernican  theory,  in  itself,  or  when  considered  apart 
from  the  support  of  the  Newtonian  hypothesis  ;  while  (2)  there  are  the 
gravest  reasons  for  doubting  whether  the  Newtonian  postulate  of  universal 
attraction  can  very  much  longer  support  itself — not  to  speak  of  rendering 
aid  to  the  older  hypothesis.  Hence,  on  these  grounds  alone,  without  going 
any  further,  it  is  evident  that  one  might  very  rationally  consider  the  authority 
of  the  Bible  preponderating  evidence  in  so  close  a  decision,  and  so  reject 
Newtonian-Copernican  theory  in  favor  of  the  Biblical-Tychonic  system  ; 
while  the  branding  of  such  a  decision  as  preposterous  or  unscientific  would 
only  be  possible  to  the  ignorant  masses,  blinded  by  popular  error  as  to  the 
real  facts  of  the  case,  and  betrayed  by  an  absurd  confidence  in  the  infalli- 
bility of  astronomical  orthodoxy  ! 

But  I  shall  also  show  that  there  are  most  positive  and  rational  reasons 
for  embracing  the  Biblical-Tychonic  theory.  I  will  show  that  if  the  new 
facts  of  science  have  been  undermining  and  discrediting  confidence  in  New- 
tonian theory,  as  a  competent  explanation  of  the  hypothetical  Copernican 
mechanism  of  the  universe,  at  the  very  same  time  the  new  discoveries  of 
science  have  been  placing  in  our  hands  the  most  perfect  and  competent 
explanation  of  the  Biblical-Tychonic  mechanism  of  the  universe,  and  one 
too  which  embraces  in  its  explanation,  as  one  connected  system,  the  entire 
wide  range  of  physical  phenomena  which  has  amazed  modern  scientists  ! 
Is  this  incredible  ?  Let  us  proceed  to  the  demonstration  ! 

I  mean  by  the  Biblical-Tychonic  system,  the  astronomical  scheme 
suggested  by  Scripture.  The  Bible,  and  not  Tycho  Brahe,  is  the  authority 
I  believe  in  and  have  ventured  to  follow,  while  Tycho's  merit  for  me  lies  in 
the  fact  that  his  most  rational  and  competent  system  is  the  one  whose  essen- 
tial elements  the  Bible  sustains.  The  Biblical  scheme  may  be  briefly  outlined 
as  follows  : 

1.  The  physical  heavens  and  earth  stand  in  a  relation  which  adumbrates 
the  moral  relation  subsisting  between  the  scene  of  God's  presence  and  the 
scene  of  man's  activities.     This  moral  relation  is  summarized  in  the  state- 
ment :   "  The  heavens  are  My  throne,  and  the  earth  is  My  footstool"  (Isa., 
Ixvi.  i) ;  the  first  being  characterized  as  the  source  of  Creator-dominion  and 
government,  as  well  as  the  source  of  blessings,  goodness  and  mercy  for  the 
creature  ;  while  the  earth  is  characteristically  the  theatre  of  God's  display 
of  His  attributes  before  all  creation,  and  the  scene  of  the  execution  of  His 
counsels  in  view  of  eternity — the  passive  and  unworthy  recipient  of  heaven's 
bounty. 

2.  The  physical  relation  answering  to  this  moral  relation  is  announced 
in  the  opening  verse  of  the  Bible:    "In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth." 

3.  Scripture  indicates  a  considerable  period  between  this  original  crea- 
tion of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  the  adjustment  of  the  physical  universe 


32 

immediately  prior  to  the  creation  of  the  first  human  inhabitant  of  earth.  For, 
in  Gen.  i.  i,  an  original  creation  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  is  announced  ; 
in  Isa.  xlv.  18,  Heb.,  we  are  told  of  "God  Himself  who  formed  the  earth 
and  made  it,  He  who  established  it,"  that  "not  as  waste  did  He  create 
it;"  while  in  Gen.  i.  2,  we  find  that  the  earth  had  become  "waste  and 
empty,"  with  "darkness  on  the  face  of  the  deep."  Thus  between  this 
original  creation  and  this  chaos  occurred  the  geological  ages,  with  we  know 
not  what  celestial  phenomena ;  while  this  long  period  (for  such  it  was,  unless 
geological  science  utterly  deceives  us)  was  terminated  by  some  cataclysm 
which  certainly  embraced  our  present  solar  system. 

4.  Out  of  this  chaos,  by  His  fiat,  God  reconstructed  in  six  days  the  solar 
system  substantially  as  known  to  us  ;   peopled  earth,  air  and  water  with 
terrestrial  animal  and  vegetable  life  ;    and  created  the   first   human  pair. 
On  the  first  day  He  invoked  light  where  there  had  been  darkness ;  on  the 
second  day  He  separated  atmospheric  heavens  from  the  floods ;  on  the  third 
day  he  caused  portions  of  the  submerged  earth's  surface  to  emerge  from  the 
floods,  and  gathered  the  waters  in  sea-beds  ;  and  on  the  fourth  day  He  estab- 
lished "  light-bearers"  in  the  expanse  of  the  heavens — sun,  moon  and  stars. 

5.  Thus  the  earth  is  the  centre  of  the  physical  universe  —  the  special 
object  of  the  offices  of  the  various  telestial  bodies. 

6.  The  earth  is  stationary,  all  thought  of  rotation  on  an  axis  or  of  annual 
revolution  being  dismissed  by  the  language  of  Scripture,  if  taken  literally. 
In  fact,  the  earth  is  in  Scripture  everywhere  the  type  and  symbol  of  fixed- 
ness and  stability.     (The  following  passages  will  be  found  to  be  character- 
istic :    I.  Sam.  ii.  8  ;   Job  ix.  6  ;  xxvi.  7  ;  xxxviii.  4—6 ;    Ps.  xlvi.  2  ;   Ixxviii. 
69  ;  cii.  25  ;  civ.  5  ;  cxix.  89,  90 ;  Prov.  viii.  29  ;  Isa.  xiii.  13  ;  xxiv.  18-20 ; 
li.  13  ;  Mic.  vi.  2  ;  Zach.  xii.  i  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  35  ;  Heb.  i.  10-12.) 

7.  In  point  of  size  the  heavenly  bodies  are  divided  into  two  classes ; 
"  The  two  great  lights,"  or  sun  and  moon,  and  "  the  stars"  (Gen.  i.  16). 

8.  The  sun  is  much  larger  than  the  moon,  since  of   "the  two  great 
lights,"  the  sun  is  distinguished  as  "  the  great  light,"  and  the  moon  as  "the 
small  light"  (Gen.  i.  16).    This  conception  of  relative  sizes  is  also  indicated 
by  the  Apostle  Paul  in  I.  Cor.  xv.  41. 

9.  The  ' '  rising,"  ' '  setting  "  and  ' '  going  down  "  of  the  sun  are  constantly 
mentioned  in  Scripture,  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  thus  implying 
the  reality  of  the  phenomenal  appearance  of  the  daily  revolution  of  the  sun 
about  the  earth.      A  good  concordance  will  show  how  common  are  such 
phrases.     Somewhat  more  definite  reference  to  the  daily  movement  of  the 
sun  is  found  in  Josh,  x.,  12,  13  ;  Hab.  iii.  n  ;  Ps.  xix.  4-6  ;  Ecc.   i.   5  ;* 

*In  Eccl.  i.  5-7  we  have  the  following: 

"The  sun  also  riseth,  and  the  sun  goeth  down,  and  hasteth  to  its  place  where  it 
ariseth. 

"The  wind  goeth  towards  the  south,  and  turneth  about  towards  the  north  ;  it  turneth 
about  continually,  and  the  wind  returneth  again  to  its  circuits. 

"  All  the  rivers  run  into  the  sea,  yet  the  sea  is  not  full ;  unto  the  place  whence  the 


33 

Isa.  xxxviii.  8.  Thus,  in  the  records  of  the  two  notable  miracles  (Josh.  x. 
12,  13 — cp.  Hab.  iii.  II,  and  Isa.  xxxviii.  8),  we  have  records  of  the  actual 
physical  phenomena,  sun  and  moon  being  restrained  in  their  daily  courses 
about  the  earth  in  the  one  case,  while  in  the  other  the  sun  was  made  to 
recede  on  its  course.  Josh.  x.  12,  13  affords  evidence  of  the  daily  revolution 
of  the  moon,  as  well  as  of  that  of  the  sun.  The  daily  revolution  of  the  star- 
sphere  about  the  earth  is  necessarily  assumed  in  this  system. 

10.  The  special  office  of  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  is  to  minister  to  the 
earth.     These  celestial  bodies  were  ordained  "to  divide  between  the  day 
and  the  night,"   "  for  signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and  for  years," 
and  to  "be  for  light-bearers  in  the  expanse  of  the  heavens  to  give  light  on 
the  earth"  (Gen.  i,  14,  15).      Again  we  have  the  very  definite  statement: 
"  God  set  them  in  the  expanse  of  the  heavens,  to  give  light  on  the  earth,  and 
to  rule  during  the  day  and  during  the  night,  and  to  divide  between  the  light 
and  the  darkness"  (Gen.  i.  17,  18  ;  compare  Ps.  civ.  19,  Jer.  xxxi.  35,  and 
many  other  passages). 

11.  The  celestial   bodies  are  physical  types  of  the  ministry  of  divine 
goodness  from  the  moral  heavens  to  man  and  his  world. 

a.  The  sun  is  a  type  of  God  in  relation  to  the  universe  ("  God  is  light " — 
I.  John  i.  5  ;  cp.  Eph.  v.  8  ;  "dwelling  in  unapproachable  light" — I.  Tim. 
vi.  16;  cp.  Ps.  civ.  I,  2).      It  is  especially  a  type  of  God  the  Son,  Revealer 
of  the  glory  of  the  Godhead — the  Divine  Person  who  has  the  office  of  visita- 
tion and  ministration  to  the  earth  in  a  special  and  literal  sense  ("The  Sun 
of  righteousness  shall  arise,  with  healing  in  His  wings" — Mai.  iv.  2  ;  cp.  Ps. 
xix.  4-6;  John  i.  7-9;  viii.  12;  ix.  5;   I.  John  ii.  8;  Rev.  xxi.  23). 

b.  I  believe  the  moon  is  a  type  both  of  the  nation  of  Israel  and  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  when  either  is  viewed  as  a  collective  unit ;  but  this  is  not 
so  readily  demonstrated  by  a  mere  reference  to  proof-texts.    .  It  is  in  their 
character  as  ordained  mediums  of  God's  communication  of  the  light  of  reve- 
lation to  the  earth,  that   Israel  and  the  Church  may  each  claim  the  moon  as 
their  symbol. 

c.  The  stars  are  sometimes  types  of  angelic  ministry  (lleb.  i.  7,  14  ;  Rev. 
i.    1 6,   20),   including  fallen  angels,  under  whom  the  administration  of  the 
affa'irs  of   this  world   has  been  left  for  a  time  (Dan.  viii.  10;  Rev.  vi.  13; 
viii.  10— 12  ;  xii.  4  ;  II.  Cor.  xi.  14).      The  stars  are  also  types  of  individual 
saints,  new-born  from  above,  who  are  vessels  of  the  communication  of  the 
light  of  truth  to  the  men  of  earth  (Dan.  xii.   3;  Matt.  v.  14-16;  Phil.  ii. 

rivers  come,  thither  they  return  again  "  fsee  LXX.) 

In  verse  6  here  we  have  exact  science :  the  law  of  the  trade-winds  and  counter-trade- 
winds  between  north  pole  and  equator,  as  accurately  stated  as  they  could  have  been  by 
the  late  Prof.  M.  F.  Maury.  In  verse  7  we  have  exact  science  :  a  summary  of  the  perpetual 

in  turn  are  fed  by  the  sea,  through  the  process  of  evaporation,  cloud  formation  and  showers. 
May  we  interpret  verse  5  as  intended  to  convey  something  less  reliable  than  the  exact 
science  found  in  the  accompanying  verses  ? 


34 

15,  i6).  A  star  is  also  several  times  used  metaphorically  of  Christ  (Num. 
xxiv.  17;  Rev.  ii.  28;  xxii.  16 ;  cp.  Matt.  ii.  2,  7,  9,  10). 

This  hurried  review  may  convey  a  fair  idea  of  the  astronomical  scheme 
of  the  Bible.  The  careful  tuition  which  has  nursed  us  in  Newtonian-Coper- 
nican  notions  naturally  inspires  ridicule  for  this  rival  theory.  But  let  us 
remember  that  surrender  to  any  tendency  in  this  direction  is  but  the  symptom 
that  our  minds  are  too  narrow  to  appreciate  the  actual  facts  of  the  case — the 
testimony  of  the  best  experts  that  this  Biblical  scheme,  which  seems  so  crude 
to  our  present  prejudices,  shares  equally  with  the  dominant  theory  the  ability 
to  explain  all  the  observed  phenomena !  Moreover,  the  mechanism  of  the 
Biblical-Tychonic  system  can  now  be  explained  on  a  most  rational  and  plaus- 
ible principle. 

If  a  bar  of  soft  iron  be  placed  in  the  centre  of  a  coil  of  wire  and  an 
electric  current  be  sent  around  the  wire,  the  iron  will  be  transformed  into  a 
magnet,  retaining  its  magnetism  while  the  current  passes.  If  steel  is  used 
instead  of  iron,  the  passing  of  the  current  about  it  transforms  the  steel  into 
a  permanent  magnet.  It  is  by  means  of  electricity,  thus  applied,  that  the 
most  powerful  magnets  are  obtained.  Let  the  earth  be  the  stationary  iron 
or  steel  bar  in  the  centre,  with  the  sun,  by  its  daily  and  annual  movements 
creating  about  it  a  constant  and  powerful  electric  current,  and  we  have  a 
principle  which  is  remarkable  for  its  simplicity,  and  yet  seems  capable  of 
explaining,  not  merely  the  Biblical-Tychonic  mechanism,  but  all  the  observed 
phenomena  of  the  physical  universe  ! 

I.  This  principle  would  explain  the  phenomenon  of  terrestrial  gravita- 
tion. It  is  a  fact  well  known  that  the  earth  is  literally  a  great  magnet,  with 
magnetic  poles.  The  north  magnetic  pole  is  situated  about  1,000  miles  from 
the  geographical  or  axial  north  pole,  so-called — the  existence  of  the  latter 
being  assumed  by  the  postulate  of  the  daily  rotation  of  the  earth  upon  its 
axis.  The  tendency  of  a  magnet  to  arrange  itself  in  the  line  of  the  mag- 
netic meridian,  or  nearly  north  and  south,  is  the  principle  on  which  the 
mariner's  compass,  with  its  magnetic  needle,  is  constructed.  On  the  assump- 
tion which  we  have  made,  terrestrial  gravitation  is  simply  a  phenomenon 
of  magnetism — the  attractive  force  of  that  great  magnet,  the  earth. 

The  law  of  terrestrial  gravitation  (determined  from  the  investigation  of 
falling  bodies,  joined  with  the  assumption  that  we  may  regard  the  attractive 
force  of  the  earth  as  if  concentrated  at  its  centre)  seems  to  be,  that  the 
attraction  of  all  bodies  toward  the  earth  varies  as  the  product  of  their  masses, 
and  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance  from  the  centre  of  the  earth. 
Experiments  with  magnets  are  said  to  have  disclosed  the  law  that  the  mag- 
netic force  of  attraction  likewise  varies  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance. 
So  far  the  facts  strikingly  favor  the  solution  here  proposed.  But  it  is  said 
that  gravitation  differs  from  magnetic  attraction  in  virtue  of  the  fact  that 
gravitation  is  directly  as  the  masses,  without  reference  to  the  nature  of  these 
masses,  whereas  magnetic  attraction  takes  into  consideration  the  nature  of 


35 

the  masses.  To  account  for  this,  however,  we  need  only  resort  to  the 
hypothesis  of  a  primary  and  secondary  effect  (a  favorite  solution  in  modern 
physics),  under  the  primary  effect  grouping  all  the  phenomena  of  so-called 
gravitation,  based  on  the  fact  that  the  earth  is  maintained  as  a  stable  magnet 
by  the  sun's  electrical  ministry,  while  under  the  secondary  effect  we  may 
group  the  phenomena  of  ordinary  magnetism  and  electricity,  which  vary 
with  varying  conditions. 

Thus  we  also  account  for  the  fact  that  all  substances  are  not  magnetic, 
or  attracted  by  a  magnet,  but  that  some  are  diamagnetic,  being;  repelled  by 
the  magnet.  The  principle  to  be  noted  is  that  all  bodies  on  the  earth's 
surface  are  either  magnetic  or  diamagnetic  :  nothing  is  indifferent  to  the 
magnet :  whatever  is  not  positively  attracted  by  the  magnet  is  positively 
repelled  by  it.  Probably  there  is  some  relation  between  this  phenomenon 
and  the  analogous  one  of  the  existence  almost  everywhere  of  either  a  positive 
or  negative  electrical  state,  while  a  body  positively  electrified  repels  another 
similarly  charged,  but  attracts  a  body  charged  with  negative  electricity  ;  and 
a  body  negatively  electrified  repels  another  similarly  charged,  but  attracts  a 
body  charged  with  positive  electricity.  On  the  basis  of  this  solution  we 
would  thus  say,  that  the  primary  action  of  the  earth  as  a  magnet  attracts  all 
bodies  within  raiige  of  its  influence,  according  to  the  fixed  law  controlling 
the  action  of  falling  bodies,  while  the  secondary  effects,  exhibited  in  the 
phenomena  of  electricity  and  magnetism  on  the  earth's  surface,  vary  according 
to  varying  conditions  and  different  substances,  producing  the  phenomena  of 
positive  and  negative  electricity  and  of  magnetic  and  diamagnetic  conditions. 

II.  This  solution  of  the  Biblical -Tychonic  mechanism  of  the  universe 
also  enables  us  to  group  together  the  phenomena  of  heat,  light,  actinic  force 
or  chemical  energy,  electricity,  and  magnetism,  as  simply  different  manifest- 
ations of  the  ultimate  physical  energy,  which  in  view  of  its  source  and  the 
power  of  diffusion,  we  may  designate  as  solar  radiant  energy.  The  close 
relation  between  heat,  light  and  chemical  energy  has  been  demonstrated. 
The  potentiality  of  a  ray  of  sunshine  embraces  them  all,  and  in  the  refrac- 
tion of  such  a  ray  by  its  passage  through  a  prism,  the  majority  of  heat-rays 
are  arranged  below  the  light  rays  and  the  majority  of  actinic-rays  are 
arranged  above  the  light-rays,  so  that  the  heating  energy  of  the  refracted 
sunbeam  is  greatest  below  the  color  band  and  the  chemical  energy  is  greatest 
above  the  color-band.  Again,  the  heat-rays  have  been  concentrated,  this 
increase  of  their  refrangibility  changing  them  into  light ;  while  by  taking 
the  chemical  rays  alone  and  passing  them  through  certain  solutions  which 
decrease  their  refrangibility,  they  are  similarly  changed  into  color  rays. 
Thus  has  apparently  been  established,  not  alone  the  intimate  rejation  of  heat, 
light  and  actinic  energy,  but  their  interconvertibility. 

Again,  the  energy  of  a  current  of  electricity  may  be  converted  into  chem- 
ical energy,  into  heat,  into  light  and  into  magnetism.  The  art  of  electro- 
plating embodies  the  principle  of  producing  chemical  energy  by  means  t>f 


36 

an  electric  current.  The  electric  light,  now  so  common,  illustrates  the  con- 
version of  electrical  energy  into  luminous  energy,  while  the  conversion  of 
electrical  energy  into  heat  is  a  necessary  step  in  the  more  difficult  process 
of  conversion  into  light.  On  the  other  hand,  heat  can  be  converted  into  an 
electric  current,  as  exemplified  in  the  thermo-electric  battery.  We  have 
already  noticed  that  electrical  energy  can  be  converted  into  magnetic  energy, 
a  magnet  being  formed  by  passing  a  current  of  electricity  about  a  piece  of 
steel.  Machines  constructed  on  this  principle  are  employed  in  commercial 
life.  On  the  other  hand,  magnetic  energy  may  be  likewise  converted  into 
electrical  energy,  this  principle  being  utilized  in  the  dynamo-electric  machines 
which  generate  the  electric  current  for  the  production  of  the  electric  light 
of  commerce. 

Thus  not  alone  is  the  Biblical -Tychonic  conception  most  rational  in 
making  our  sun  the  physical  source  of  all  energy  in  the  physical  universe 
(for  it  is  only  a  Copernican  imagination  which  can  feel  sure,  in  the  absence 
of  any  real  evidence,  of  the  existence  of  energy  beyond  the  range  of  the 
sun's  power),  but  we  are  thus  able  to  explain  in  a  scientific  manner  the 
undoubted  affinity  existing  between  heat,  light,  actinic  energy,  electricity 
and  magnetism.  Their  interconvertibility  demonstrates  that  these  phenom- 
ena are  simply  various  manifestations  of  an  ultimate  energy :  and  what  can 
this  ultimate  energy  be  but  solar  energy  ! 

III.  Tliis  solution  of  the  Biblical -Tychoak  scheme  is  also  in  most  per- 
fect harmony  with  the  all  -  important  law  of  the  conservation  of  energy. 
The  formulation  of  this  law  has  been  styled  the  greatest  scientific  achieve- 
ment of  the  nineteenth  century.  The  interconvertibility  of  physical  forces, 
of  which  we  have  spoken,  has  suggested  to  scientists  the  postulate  of  some 
universal  energy,  of  which  these  particular  forces  are  but  special  conditions, 
modes  or  manifestations.  Taking  the  so-called  physical  forces  in  what  seems 
to  be  a  convenient  order  of  transformation,  we  have  a  circular  chain  which 
returns  into  itself  as  follows  :  heat  produces  light,  light  produces  chemical 
action,  chemical  action  produces  electricity,  electricity  produces  magnetism, 
magnetism  produces  mechanical  motion,  mechanical  motion  produces  heat. 
Scientists  have  puzzled  themselves  over  the  postulate  of  some  universal 
energy  behind  this  circle.  The  Biblical-Tychonic  hypothesis  puts  a  period 
to  this  search  by  placing  behind  this  circle  of  forces,  as  their  source,  one 
well-known  agency — the  sun.  And  all  scientists  must  now  concede  that, 
barring  the  anomaly  of  universal  attraction,  this  solution  is  practically  correct 
for  our  own  solar  system  ;  although  their  troublesome  postulate  of  many 
solar  systems  forces  them  to  search  for  some  common  unknown  energy 
behind  these  many  imaginary  suns. 

Taking  as  a  basis  this  relation  of  the  physical  forces,  disclosed  by  tkeir 
interconvertibility,  the  law  of  the  conservation  of  energy  recognizes  that 
the  energy  of  the  universe  is  never  diminished,  but  is  a  constant  quantity 
which  is  constantly  undergoing  transformation  from  one  form  to  another, 


37 

performing  in  (he  process  all  the  various  phenomena  of  the  physical  world. 
This  theory  has  the  rational  feature  of  necessitating  the  postulate  of  an 
Infinite  Creator  of  the  physical  universe  ;  for  if  the  sum-total  of  energy  in 
the  universe  is  ever  the  same,  either  this  condition  must  have  existed  from 
eternity,  or  else  at  some  time  the  physical  universe  was  launched  by  some 
great  Power  who  endowed  it  with  the  potential  energy  which  has  since  been 
in  process  of  transformation  into  kinetic  energy.  But  the  physical  universe 
could  not  have  existed  from  eternity,  because  its  energy  is  not  infinite  ;  for, 
had  such  a  universe  existed  from  eternity,  its  finite,  fixed  quantity  of  potential 
energy  would  long  ago  have  assumed  the  kinetic  form,  and  this  would  have 
diffused  as  heat,  causing  all  matter  to  have  a  uniform  temperature  and  termi- 
nating all  motion  and  all  life — which  is  not  the  case.  Hence,  the  physical 
universe  had  a  beginning  ;  and  since  it  was  launched  with  the  full  endowment 
of  its  present  energy  as  potential  energy,  it  necessarily,  had  a  Creator  and 
Endower,  Who  necessarily  is  greater  and  more  powerful  than  His  work- 
manship. It  follows  that  the  potential  energy  with  which  the  physical 
universe  was  endowed,  had  existed  as  potential  energy  in  the  Person  of  this 
Creator  from  all  eternity. 

But  the  Biblical-Tychonic  theory  has  the  merit  of  permitting  us  to  con- 
ceive of  the  law  of  the  conservation  of  energy  without  the  qualification  of 
the  corollary  of  the  dissipation  of  energy.  Let  me  explain  this  for  the 
reader  who  may  be  unacquainted  with  the  theory.  By  potential  energy  is 
meant  energy  in  a  passive  or  stored-up  state,  which  by  some  means  may  be 
transformed  into  an  active  force.  This  becomes  kinetic,  actual,  or  active 
energy,  when  it  is  liberated  as  an  acting  power  which  is  accomplishing 
results.  Thus  we  have  the  potential  energy  of  gravitation  in  a  weight  which 
is  raised  and  suspended,  while  this  becomes  the  kinetic  energy  which  carries 
it  to  the  earth  when  the  weight  is  released.  Potential  chemical  energy  is 
stored  in  explosives,  and  becomes  kinetic  energy  when  released  in  their 
explosion.  When  a  watch  is  wound  up  potential  mechanical  energy  is  stored 
in  its  main-spring,  while  the  mechanism  which  gradually  releases  it  converts 
it  into  kinetic  energy,  the  watch  "running  down,"  as  we  say,  when  all  the 
potential  energy  has  been  so  utilized. 

According  to  theory,  if  the  mechanism  of  the  universe  were  like  that  of 
a  watch,  and  it  had  been  wound  up  by  the  Creator,  with  the  endowment 
of  so  much  potential  energy  in  the  main-spring,  then  when  all  this  potential 
energy  had  at  last  been' utilized  in  the  kinetic  energy  which  produces  the 
pulsations  of  nature,  these  pulsations  would  cease — the  watch  would  be  run 
down.  But  it  is  recognized  that  the  universe  is  not,  in  fact,  so  constructed, 
but  has  been  devised  by  an  Intelligence  who  makes  the  given  potential 
energy  do  much  more  work  ;  for  in  the  laboratory  of  nature  much  of  the 
kinetic  energy,  after  doing  its  work,  is  converted  again  into  potential  energy, 
and  is  thus  ready  to  do  more  work.  Now  if  all  the  kine,tic  energy  could  be 
converted  back  into  potential  energy,  after  doing  its  work,  we  would  thus 


have  an  endless  circuit ;  the  mechanism  of  the  universe  would  he  adjusted 
on  the  self-sufficient  principle  of  perpetual  motion,  and  the  watch  would 
never  run  down,  however  its  movements  might  change,  like  the  phases  of '  a 
kaleidoscope.  But,  according  to  the  current  theory,  neither  is  this  the  fact. 
All  experiments  seem  to  show  that  in  this  process  of  transformation,  so  as  to 
make  a  continuous  circuit  of  forces,  there  is  a  dissipation  of  energy  into 
forms  from  which  it  cannot  be  recovered  for  further  utilization  in  doing 
work.  The  experiments  seem  to  show  that  if  heat  be  converted  into 
mechanical  motion,  and  this  mechanical  motion  be  converted  back  into  heat, 
the  utilization  of  this  heat  to  produce  mechanical  motion  a  second  time  will 
not  accomplish  so  much  work  as  before,  showing  a  dissipation  of  heat  in  the 
process  of  transformation. 

According  to  theory,  therefore,  the  mechanism  of  the  universe  is  actually 
on  the  principle  of  two  watches,  so  arranged  that  the  running  down  of  the 
main-spring  of  one  winds  up  the  main-spring  of  the  other,  and  vice  versa. 
But  in  the  actual  experiment  with  two  watches,  some  of  the  energy  is  dissi- 
pated through  the  friction  of  the  machinery ;  and  while  the  mechanism  can 
be  long  kept  going  by  this  mutual  process  of  transformation  of  one  kind  of 
energy  into  the  other,  yet  after  each  transformation  the  reservoir  of  potential 
energy  contains  less  than  before,  and  presently  the  two  watches  must  run 
down.  Since  all  man's  experimental  attempts  to  establish  a  perpetual  trans- 
formation of  energy  have  been  bafHed  by  this  dissipation  of  energy,  the 
scientist  has  concluded  that  the  dissipation  of  energy  is  a  law  of  the  universe, 
and  that  in  the  course  of  millions  of  years  the  great  physical  clock-work  must 
run  down — despite  the  fact  that  the  sum-total  of  energy  is  unchangeable,  and 
that  nature  is  ingeniously  contrived  so  as  to  utilize  it  for  work  over  and  over 
again,  during  a  very  long  period  of  time. 

But  is  the  dissipation  of  energy  an  inevitable  deduction  ?  To  show  that 
the  Biblical -Tychonic  theory  avoids  the  necessity  of  making  this  deduction, 
is  to  show  that  it  is  vastly  superior  to  the  Newtonian-Copernican  system  as  a 
basis  of  natural  philosophy.  Scientists  have  always  felt  that  could  the  New- 
tonian and  Copernican  hypotheses  help  us  to  formulate  a  rational  conception 
of  how  the  physical  universe  might  self-subsist  indefinitely,  this  would  go  far 
toward  demonstrating  their  truth.  La  Place  thought  he  had  effected  this, 
for  had  he  really  demonstrated  the  stability  of  our  solar  system,  it  would  be 
ijatural  to  account  for  all  solar  systems,  and  the  entire  universe,  on  the  same 
basis.  But  time  has  demonstrated,  instead,  the  failure  of  La  Place,  as  well 
as  of  his  predecessors  and  successors,  as  Professor  Hall  concedes ;  while 
through  the  lack  of  such  a  demonstration  physicists  have  been  forced  to  the 
other  extreme  of  postulating  the  principle  of  the  dissipation  of  energy,  involv- 
ing the  ultimate  relapse  of  the  universe  into  passivity  and  immobility. 

But  when  we  accept  the  Biblical -Tychonic  system,  and  conceive  the  sun 
to  be  the  grand  reservoir  of  potential  energy,  which  it  is  constantly  giving 
forth  as  kinetic  energy  to  maintain  the  mechanism  of  the  universe,  it  becomes 


39 

perfectly  rational  to  think  of  the  sun  as  receiving  again  all  the  kinetic  energy 
which  is  dissipated  in  the  process  of  doing  work,  and  which  is  not  stored  as 
potential  energy  in  a  practical  form  for  use  in  some* part  of  the  physical 
mechanism  of  the  universe.  Those  familiar  with  the  fruits  of  the  study  of 
the  sun  already  reaped  by  the  more  rational  "  New  Astronomy,"  will  recog- 
nize that  the  theory  we  have  just  propounded  would  seem  to  fit  very  well  the 
remarkable  phenomena  connected  with  the  sun.  Moreover,  we  have  the 
analogy  for  such  a  theory  before  us. 

We  have  seen  that  the  directing  of  a  current  of  electricity  about  a  bar  of 
soft  iron  will  transform  the  latter  into  a  magnet  during  this  process.  When 
the  current  ceases  the  soft  iron  ceases  to  be  a  powerful  magnet ;  and  yet  it 
is  a  fact  that  after  the  iron  apparently  ceases  to  be  a  magnet,  it  is  possible 
to  utilize  it  to  generate  a  current  of  electricity  as  strong  as  that  which  had 
previously  magnetized  the  iron.  This  is  seen  in  the  dynamo-electric  machine, 
which  is  frequently  constructed  by  an  arrangement  of  coiled  wire  which  may 
be  made  to  revolve  about  soft  iron  which  has  been  treated  by  electricity  in 
the  way  described.  Though  the  iron  has  apparently  ceased  to  be  a  magnet, 
yet  it  is  capable  of  generating  a  slight  electrical  current  in  the  coils  revolved 
about  it  ;  the  current  thus  generated  increases  the  magnetism  of  the  iron, 
which  is  in  turn  enabled  to  generate  a  stronger  current  in  the  coils,  this 
process  continuing  until  the  strength  of  the  electrical  current  and  of  the 
magnet  alike  equal  the  capacity  of  the  machine.  By  such  a  process  of 
resurrection  is  power  habitually  generated,  after  the  machine  has  been  stopped 
and  electricity  and  magnetism  have  apparently  disappeared. 

In  the  huge  mechanism  of  the  universe  which  we  have  assumed,  the 
earth  is  the  large  central  magnet,  and  has  the  virtue  of  acting  as  a  perma- 
nent magnet  through  the  constant  electrical  ministry  of  the  sun.  The  two 
movements  of  the  sun  answer  to  the  coil  about  the  magnet.  This  will  be 
clear  if  we  suppose  that  the  sun  in  his  course  is  wrapping  an  imaginary  wire 
about  the  earth,  in  the  path  of  his  vertical  rays  upon  the  earth's  surface. 
From  March  21  to  June  21  he  is  daily  encircling  the  earth,  while  at  the 
same  time  gradually  moving  toward  the  north.  Thus  the  imaginary  coil  laid 
upon  the  earth's  surface  would  be  like  the  winding  of  a  top-string  from  the 
Equator  to  the  Tropic  of  Cancer.  From  June  21  to  September  22  the  path 
of  his  vertical  rays  would  wind  a  similar  coil  from  the  tropic  back  to  the 
equator;  while  from  September  22  to  March  21  a  similar  coil  would  be  laid 
between  the  equator  and  the  Tropic  of  Capricorn,  with  a  return  coil  from  the 
latter  to  the  equator.  The  coil  is  of  course  imaginary,  but  the  movements 
which  it  pictures  —  according  to  the  Biblical-Tychonic  system  —  are  not. 
On  the  contrary,  there  is  the  sun's  annual  journey  and  his  exceedingly  swift 
daily  motion  about  the  earth,  while  during  all  this  time  his  huge  incandescent 
bulk  is  revolving  upon  its  own  axis  and  radiating  its  energy  in  the  vertical 
rays  which  strike  the  earth  in  the  line  of  our  imaginary  coil,  and  in  the 
slanting  rays  which  strike  the  earth  elsewhere,  at  varying  angles,  illuminating 


40 

one-half  of  its  surface  continually  !  This  energy,  lavished  upon  the  earth, 
we  may  assume  to  be  the  source  of  its  primary  magnetism,  which  theorists 
have  styled  terrestrial  gravitation,  as  well  as  the  source  of  the  terrestrial 
phenomena  of  heat,  light,  chemical  energy,  electricity,  (secondary)  magnetism 
and  mechanical  motion.  And  at  the  same  time  the  great  terrestrial  magnet 
reacts  with  equal  effect  upon  the  sun,  on  a  principle  analogous  to  the  action 
and  reaction  of  electric  current  and  magnet  in  our  dynamo-electric  machines. 
Thus  could  we  account  in  a  rational  way  for  the  close  connection  between 
special  electrical  phenomena  on  the  earth,  such  as  magnetic  storms  and  the 
Aurora  borealis,  and  special  activity  at  the  sun,  as  revealed  in  the  appearance 
of  many  so-called  spots. 

The  other  features  of  the  celestial  mechanism  would  all  seem  to  find 
harmonious  explanation  on  this  basis.  We  would  reverse  the  present  theory 
as  to  sun  and  earth,  representing  the  sun  as  held  in  his  orbit  in  an  equilibrium 
representing  the  balance  between  the  attracting  force  exerted  upon  him  by 
the  magnetism  of  the  earth  and  the  electrical  or  thermal  repulsion  exerted 
by  him  against  the  earth.  Will  it  be  objected  that  we  cannot.conceive  of  the 
earth  as  exerting  such  a  force  upon  the  immense  mass  of  the  sun  ?  He  who 
reasons  thus  is  simply  preoccupied  with  the  idea  of  gravitation,  whereas  we 
are  speaking  of  magnetism.  It  is  not  a  question  of  the  gravitation  of  the 
earth  grappling  with  the  sun's  mass,  but  of  •&  magnet  drawing  an  immense 
but  very  magnetic  body.  This  force  of  magnetism  would  be  inversely  as  the 
square  of  the  distance,  but  would  be  otherwise  determined  by  the  power  of 
the  magnet  and  the  magnetic  nature  of  the  sun,  so  that  however  formidable 
the  other  factors  (the  sun's  mass,  distance  and  radiant  repulsion),  these  would 
simply  be  the  elements  for  measuring  the  power  of  the  niagnet  and  the  degree 
in  which  the  sun's  mass  is  magnetic. 

In  the  same  way,  the  moon  would  be  held  in  an  orbit  about  the  earth  by 
the  magnetism  of  the  latter,  while  being  kept  in  equilibrium  by  radiant 
repulsion.  This  radiant  energy  of  the  moon  would  of  course  be  of  a-secondary 
nature — received  from  the  sun  and  projected  against  the  earth.  This  might  be 
reinforced,  however,  by  a  secondary  electrical  current  caused  by  the  moon's 
own  motion  about  the  earth,  on  the  principle  of  the  induction  coil,  or  of  a 
secondary  electrical  current  induced  by  a  primary  current — that  of  the  sun 
in  this  case. 

Nor  is  this  solution  less  remarkable  for  the  apparent  ease  with  which  it 
explains  the  phenomena  of  the  planets  and  of  the  sphere  of  fixed  stars. 
Here  we  must  evidently  distinguish  between  the  inferior,  or  inner  planets. 
Mercury  and  Venus,  and  those  whose  orbits  lie  entirely  outside  the  orbit 
of  the  sun  about  the  earth  —  Eros,  Mars,  the  Asteroids,  Jupiter,  Saturn, 
Uranus  and  Neptune.  There  was  general  skepticism  among  astronomers 
when  Schiaparelli  announced  about  twelve  years  ago  that  Mercury  and  Venus 
were  like  our  moon,  revolving  but  once  upon  their  respective  axes  in  making 


41 

the  circuit  of  their  respective  orbits,  and  thus  always  keeping  the  same  side 
turned  toward  the  sun,  just  as  does  the  moon  toward  the  earth,  the  attracting 
power  acting  like  a  rigid  rod  soldered  to  the  point  on  the  surface  of  each 
revolving  globe  which  remains  vertical  to  the  imaginary  line  described  on 
the  surface  of  the  respective  attracting  body  by  the  vertical  rays  of  each 
revolving  globe  as  it  makes  the  circuit  of  its  orbit.  But  Schiaparelli's 
observation's  were  confirmed  by  those  of  Perrotin,  and  in  1896  by  those  of 
Percival  Lowell,  and  astronomers  have  apparently  concluded  that  this 
anomaly  must  be  grappled  with.  In  the  present  solution,  on  the  Biblical- 
Tychonic  basis,  we  accordingly  assume  that  Mercury,  Venus  and  the  Moon 
operate  on  a  somewhat  different  principle  than  that  which  controls  the  great 
exterior  planets,  each  of  which,  the  astronomers  still  assure  us,  rotates  upon 
its  axis  like  the  sun'. 

For  the  electrical  explanation  of  the  relation  existing  between  the  sun 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  exterior  planets  and  the  revolving  star-sphere  on 
the  other,  we  resort  to  the  analogy  of  the  induction  coil.  Here  the  primary 
current  is  produced  in  a  coil  of  wire  wrapped  around  a  spool  or  bobbin  which 
will  fit  inside  a  larger  bobbin,  similarly  wrapped  and  connected  with  a 
galvanometer.  A  secondary  electric  current  is  induced  in  the  coil  about 
the  large  hollow  bobbin  by  placing  inside  of  it  the  inner  coil  in  which  a  cur- 
rent has  been  produced.  This  induced  current  in  the  outer  coil  is  made  still 
stronger  by  also  making  the  inner  bobbin  hollow,  and  placing  within  it  a  core 
of  soft  iron,  or  some  other  form  of  magnet.  But  this  is  precisely  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  mechanism  of  the  physical  universe,  according  to  the  electrical 
solution  of  the  Biblical-Tychonic  system  !  The  earth,  a  central  magnet, 
answers  to  the  magnetic  core  ;  the  sun,  outside  of  this,  with  the  movements 
we  have  described,  answers  to  the  coil  on  the  inner  bobbin  which  provides 
the  primary  current  of  electricity  ;  the  revolving  star-sphere  outside  the  sun, 
with  the  exterior  planets  —  celestial  bodies  with  whom  both  motion  and 
luminous  phenomena  are  induced  by  the  primary  energy  of  the  sun — answer 
to  the  outside  coil,  in  which  the  secondary  current  is  induced. 

As  we  compare  details,  the  analogy  becomes  only  the  more  striking. 
For  example,  although  the  secondary  current  is  induced  in  the  way  described, 
it  will  soon  cease  if  the  primary  coil  be  left  stationary  inside  the  secondary  coil, 
but  is  maintained  by  the  process  of  rapidly  lifting  the  primary  coil  out  of  the 
other  and  inserting  it  again.  The  intensity  of  the  induced  secondary  cur- 
rents is  in  proportion  to  the  rapidity  of  this  movement.  In  the  commercial 
application  of  the  principle,  the  same  effect  is  produced  by  mechanical  means 
which  rapidly  break  the  current  which  passes  from  the  battery  to  the  primary 
coil ;  and  with  the  alternating  currents  obtained  with  the  introduction  of  a 
condenser,  the  most  powerful  electrical  currents  known  to  commerce  or  the 
laboratory  are  secured.  The  intensity  of  the  secondary  currents  which  may 
be  obtained  greatly  exceeds  that  of  the  primary  current ;  and  it  is  not  too 
much  to  say  that  on  this  principle  we  could  conceive  of  our  sun  as  the  motive 


42 

power  of  the  entire  universe,  as  well  as  of  the  solar  system,  even  though  the 
universe  should  be  postulated  on  the  scale  which  the  Copernican  hypothesis 
requires.  In  this  case  we  would  allow,  for  the  sake  of  the  demonstration, 
that  there  are  countless  stars,  as  large  or  larger  than  the  sun,  as  orthodox 
astronomers  now  assert,  but  that  all  these  receive  their  light  and  energy  from 
our  sun,  instead  of  being  themselves  independent  suns. 

In  the  electrical  device  we  have  taken  as  affording  the  analogy,  the  cur- 
rent in  the  primary  coil  is  furnished  by  a  battery.  In  the  celestial  mechanism 
this  battery  would  be  represented  by  the  sum-total  of  potential  energy  with 
which  the  Creator  has  endowed  the  physical  universe.  Hence  in  the  case  we 
have  supposed,  the  sun  would  have  had  as  his  original  supply  all  the  energy 
now  dispersed  throughout  the  universe.  And  since  it  is  an  observed  law  of 
the  electrical  arrangement  referred  to,  that  the  intensity  of  the  induced  cur- 
rent is  proportional  to  the  primary  current,  it  is  plain  that  an  endowment 
of  the  sun  with  the  sum-total  of  energy  in  the  physical  universe  would  have 
enabled  him,  on  the  principle  we  are  considering,  to  have  distributed  the 
energy  now  permeating  the  universe. 

According  to  another  principle  of  our  mechanism,  the  intensity  of  the 
secondary  current  is  proportional  to  the  rapidity  with  which  the  primary 
current  is  broken.  The  nearly  semi-annual  journeys  of  the  sun  between 
the  celestial  tropics,  while  at  the  same  time  daily  whirling  about  the  earth, 
would  produce  a  spiral  movement  within  the  star-sphere  like  the  shifting  of 
the  primary  coil  up  and  down  within  the  secondary  coil  of  our  electrical 
model.  Yet  this  semi-annual  movement  up  and  down  in  space  would 
scarcely  be  considered  swift  enough  of  itself,  so  that  we  will  assume  that 
the  daily  revolution  about  the  earth  is  such  as  constantly  to  break  the 
current,  while  the  strange  rotation  of  the  sun  upon  its  axis  might  also  serve 
in  some  way  to  this  end,* 

Again  it  has  been  found  that  the  intensity  of  the  secondary  currents  are 
proportional  to  the  square  of  the  resistance  in  the  secondary  coil ;  and  on 
this  principle,  the  greater  the  magnitude  of  the  star-sphere,  the  greater 
would  be  the  intensity  of  the  currents  induced  in  it  by  the  sun.  Hence  to 
the  electrical  solution  distance  and  masses  present  no  difficulty,  these  factors 
but  increasing  the  power  in  proportion  to  their  requirement  of  it. 

Returning  now  to  the  question  of  the  dissipation  of  energy.  On  the 
basis  of  the  electrical  theory  of  the  mechanism  of  the  physical  universe,  we 
have  as  little  reason  for  conceding  the  ultimate  termination  or  diminution  of 
kinetic  energy  as  we  have  for  conceding  the  doctrine  of  conservation  of  energy 
in  the  way  that  Helmholtz  taught  it,  confusing  the  phenomena  of  psychical 
and  spiritual  life  with  what  is  but  its  type  in  inanimate  nature — physical 
force.  So  far  as  the  physical  universe  is  concerned,  the  principle  of  action 

*  The  strange  fact  that  the  sun's  bulk  appears  to  rotate  on  its  axis  in  sections,  some 
parts  making  the  revolution  in  less  time  than  others,  has  so  far  remained  inexplicable  to 
the  most  ingenious  among  Newtonian  astronomers. 


43 

and  reaction,  observed  in  the  mutual  response  of  electricity  and  magnetism, 
leads  the  rational  mind  to  assume  that  the  sun,  the  reservoir  of  potential 
energy  for  the  entire  universe  according  to  the  Biblical -Tychonic  system, 
eventually  receives  again  all  the  energy  radiated  by  him  to  propel  the  vast 
machinery  under  his  charge,  thus  providing  the  power  for  an  endless  com- 
munion with  the  mechanical  life  which  he  everywhere  creates.*  I  need 
scarcely  add  that  in  this,  in  the  Biblical-Tychonic  system,  he  is  merely  the 
type  of  his  Creator,  and  of  the  relation  of  Creator  and  creature  in  the  moral 
and  spiritual  universe. 

IV.  Another  striking  testimony  in  favor  of  the  Biblical-Tychonic  theory 
is  given  by  the  spectroscope,  which  indicates  incandescent  metals  as  the 
chief  constituents  of  the  fixed  stars.  This  is  precisely  what  our  present  know- 
ledge of  electricity  would  lead  us  to  expect,  provided  the  Creator  desired  to 
utilize  the  energy  imparted  to  the  sun  so  as  to  maintain  an  innumerable 
array  of  electric  lights  in  the  firmament.  Carbon  is  perhaps  the  most 
economical  conductor  of  high  resistance  ;  and  the  incandescent  electric 
lights  of  commerce,  which  strikingly  suggest  miniature  fixed -stars,  are 
obtained  by  raising  to  a  white  heat  a  thin  strip  of  carbon  arranged  between 
the  poles  of  a  voltaic  battery  which  generates  a  strong  current.  Carbon 
poles  are  used  in  the  production  of  the  arc-light.  With  the  analogy  of  the 
incandescent  electric  light  before  us,  we  may  dismiss  the  inconceivable 
sizes  and  distances  which  the  Newtonian-Copernican  hypothesis  compels  us 
to  assign  to  the  fixed  stars,  and  can  at  the  same  time  understand  why  they 
disclose  no  disks  when  observed  through  the  telescope.  On  the  basis  of  a 
grand  electrical  plant  we  can  also  account  in  a  rational  way  for  the  phe- 
nomena— extraordinary  indeed  on  the  present  hypothesis — of  the  extinction 
of  the  light  of  fixed  stars,  to  be  reappear  again  in  a  short  period — a  thing 
which  on  the  basis  of  current  theory  may  very  well  induce  Prof.  S.  P.  Langley 
to  exclaim,  "It  is  surely  an  amazing  fact  that  suns  as  large  or  larger  than 
our  sun  should  seem  to  dwindle  almost  to  extinction,  and  regain  their  light 
within  a  few  days  or  even  hours  ;  yet  the  fact  has  long  been  known,  while 
the  cause  has  remained  a  mystery  !  "  f 

The  somewhat  different  phenomena  of  planetary  Hlumination  are  equally 
explicable  on  the  electrical  basis.  With  a  large  induction  coil,  such  as  we 
have  described,  a  display  of  lights  which  is  varied  and  unique  is  possible. 
By  passing  the  induced  currents  through  sealed  tubes  of  different  forms, 
from  which  the  air  has  been  partially  pumped,  with  the  substitution  of 
different  gases,  effects  have  been  produced  analogous  to  nearly  if  not  quite 
all  the  planetary  phenomena,  including  the  rings  of  Saturn.  When  the 

*  Writes  Prof.  C.  A.  Young  (The  Sun,  1881,  p.  277):  "Neither  is  it  wholly  safe  to 
assume  that  there  may  not  be  ways,  of  which  we  yet  have  no  conception,  by  which  the 
energy  apparently  lost  in  space  may  be  returned,  and  burned-out  suns  and  run-down 
systems  be  restored." 

t  "The  New  Astronomy,"  1880,  pp.  227-8. 


44 

tubes  are  rotated  on  axes,  producing  a  movement  corresponding  to  the  axial 
rotation  of  the  superior  planets,  the  effect  is  still  more  brilliant. 

V.  In  favor  of  the  Biblical-Tychonic  theory  is  the  undoubted  fact  that 
the  sun  maintains  the  solar  system,  and  sustains  all  physical  energy  on  the 
earth,  in  precisely  the  way  required  by  this  theory,  in  order  to  render  him 
a  physical  type  of  the  moral  relation  which  God  sustains  to  his  creation, 
as  well  as  a  type  of  the  work  of  redemption  and  new  creation  wrought  by 
Christ.  Says  Professor  Langley  : 

"  Within  a  comparatively  few  years  a  new  branch  of  astronomy  has  arisen 
which  studies  sun,  moon  and  stars  for  what  they  are  in  themselves,  and  in 
relation  to  ourselves.  Its  study  of  the  sun,  beginning  with  its  external 
features  (and  full  of  novelty  and  interest  even  as  regards  those),  led  to  the 
further  inquiry  as  to  what  it  was  made  of,  and  then  to  finding  the  unexpected 
relations  which  it  bore  to  the  earth  and  our  own  daily  lives  on  it,  the  con- 
clusion being  that,  in  a  physical  sense,  it  made  and  re-creates  us,  as  it  were, 
daily,  and  that  the  knowledge  of  the  intimate  ties  which  unite  man  with  it 
brings  results  of  the  most  practical  and  important  kind,  which  a  generation 
ago' were  unguessed  at."  * 

To  assign  to  the  sun  such  an  office  as  this,  in  relation  to  the  earth  and  all 
life  upon  it,  is  to  vindicate  the  claim  of  the. Bible  in  a  most  remarkable  way. 
For  Scripture  especially  directs  us  to  the  celestial  phenomena  for  a  testimony 
of  the  Creator's  relation  to  His  creature  :  "The  heavens  declare  the  glory 
of  God,  and  the  firmament  showeth  His  handiwork  :  day  unto  day  uttereth 
speech,  and  night  unto  night  showeth  knowledge"  (Ps.  xix.  I,  2).  More- 
over, Scripture  maintains  that  this  testimony  through  nature  leaves  men 
without  excuse:  "  Because  what  is  known  of  God  is  manifest  among  them, 
for  God  has  manifested  it  to  them — for  from  the  world's  creation  the  invis- 
ible things  of  Him  are  perceived,  being  apprehended  by  the  mind  through 
the  things  that  are  made,  both  His  eternal  power  and  divinity  —  so  as  to 
render  them  inexcusable"  (Rom.  i.  19,  20).  And  it  is  God's  goodness  and 
kindness  toward  His  creature  which  is  disclosed  in  the  sun's  service — a  kind- 
ness to  saint  and  sinner,  the  grateful  and  the  ungrateful,  since  "  He  maketh 
His  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and 
on  the  unjust"  (Matt.  v.  45).  In  the  following,  Prof.  Langley  shows  how 
the  sun  typifies  the  Creator,  in  His  impartation  to  the  various  works  of  His 
hand,  through  creation  and  the  processes  of  life,  of  varying  measures  of  His 
own  virtue  and  energy  : 

"Did  the  reader  ever  consider  that,  next  to  the  mystery  of  gravitation, 
which  draws  all  things  on  the  earth's  surface  down,  comes  that  mystery — not 
seen  to  be  one  because  so  familiar— of  the  occult  force  in  the  sunbeams  which 
lifts  things  up?  The  incomprehensible  energy  of  the  sunbeam  brought  the 
carbon  out  of  the  air,  put  it  together  in  the  weed  or  plant,  and  lifted  each 


45 

tree-trunk  above  the  soil.  The  soil  did  not  lift  it,  any  more  than  the  soil  in 
Broadway  lifted  the  spire  of  Trinity.  Men  brought  stones  there  in  wagons 
to  build  the  church,  and  the  sun  brought  the  materials  in  its  own  way,  and 
built  up  alike  the  slender  shaft  that  sustains  the  grass  blade  and  the  column 
of  the  pine.  If  the  tree  or  the  spire  fell,  it  would  require  a  certain  amount 
of  work  of  men  or  horses  or  engines  to  set  it  up  again.  So  much  actual 
work,  at  least,  the  sun  did  in  the  original  building  ;  and  if  we  consider  the 
number  of  trees  in  the  forest,  we  see  that  this  alone  is  something  great. 
But  besides  this,  the  sun  locked  up  in  each  tree  a  store  of  energy  thousands 
of  times  greater  than  that  which  was  spent  in  merely  lifting  its  trunk  from 
the  ground,  as  we  see  by  unlocking  it  again,  when  we  burn  the  tree  under 
the  boiler  of  an  engine  ;  for  it  will  develop  a  power  equal  to  the  lifting  of 
thousands  of  its  kind,  if  we  choose  to  employ  it  in  this  way.  This  is  so  true 
that  the  tree  may  fall,  and  turn  to  coal  in  the  soil,  and  still  keep  this  energy 
imprisoned  in  it — keep  it  for  millions  of  years,  till  the  black  lump  under  the 
furnace  gives  out,  in  the  whirling  spindles  of  the  factory  or  the  turning 
wheel  of  the  steamboat,  the  energy  gathered  in  the  sunshine  of  the  primeval 
world."  * 

And  if  He  of  whom  the  sun  is  but  the  type,  dividing  severally  to  His 
creatures  as  it  has  seemed  good  to  Him,  has  made  some  in  His  own  image, 
with  intelligence,  moral  capacity  and  the  energy  of  will-power  to  do  either 
good  or  ill,  will  not  such  be  required  to  account  to  Him  for  their  misuse  of 
this  endowment?  If  in  creating  man  a  spirit,  virtue  and  energy  in  a  special 
sense  have  gone  forth  from  God,  the  Eternal  Spirit,  must  not  this  spirit  in 
man  return  to  Him  who  generated  it?  Surely,  when  dissolution  shall  have 
come  upon  such  a  creature,  "Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it 
was  ;  and  the  spirit  shall  return  unto  God  who  gave  it "  (Ecc.  xii.  7). 
Helmholtz  formulated  the  law  of  the  conservation  of  energy  in  the  interest 
of  the  grossest  materialism,  as  he  supposed  ;  but  since  it  is  a  true  law  of 
nature,  its  testimony  is  very  plainly  against  materialism.  It  helps  not  an 
iota  toward  the  unnatural  and  unscientific  attempt  to  identify  the  life  of  soul 
and  spirit  with  physical  energy  ;  while  on  the  other  hand  it  affords  the  most 
striking  intimation  of  the  eternal  indestructibility  of  soul  and  spirit,  and  of 
the  eternal  accountability  to  God  of  the  spiritual  energy  which  He  has 
begotten  in  moral  creatures  !  Again,  Professor  Langley  shows  that  the  sun 
affords  a  type  of  God's  disposition  and  ability  to  take  up  anew,  in  new  crea- 
tion, the  fallen  creature  which  submits  to  His  hand  : 

"The  sunbeam  does  what  our  wisest  chemistry  cannot  do:  it  takes  the 
burned  out  ashes  and  makes  them  anew  into  green  wood  ;  it  takes  the  close 
and  breathed-out  air,  and  makes  it  fit  to  breathe  by  means  of  the  plant, 
whose  food  is  the  same  as  our  poison." 

In  the  sun  that  takes  up  the  burned-out  ashes  to  make  again  the  green 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  72-3. 


46 

wood,  we  may  surely  see  a  type  of  the  God  of  resurrection  of  our  Bible  ! 
We  may  also  notice  how  plant-life,  through  communion  with  the  sun,  is  able 
to  attain  to  a  beautiful  and  fruitful  development  in  a  poisonous  atmosphere. 
Aided  by  the  chemical  energy  of  the  sunbeam,  the  chlorophyl  and  proto- 
plasm in  the  plant-leaf  are  able  to  break  up  and  assimilate  the  carbon  dioxide 
thrown  off  by  animal  lungs,  storing  up  energy  in  its  own  structure  by  building 
up  complex  molecules.  As  food  and  fuel  the  plant  affords  the  energy  which 
supports  animal  life  and  furnishes  power  for  many  of  man's  machines. 

Says  Professor  Langley : 

"  With  the  aid  of  sunlight  a  lily  would  thrive  on  the  deadly  atmosphere  of 
the  'black  hole  of  Calcutta';  for  this  bane  to  us,  we  repeat,  is  vital  air  to 
the  plant,  which  breathes  it  in  through  all  its  pores,  bringing  it  into  contact 
with  the  chlorophyl,  its  green  blood,  which  is  to  it  what  the  red  blood  is  to 
us  ;  doing  almost  everything,  however,  by  means  of  the  sun  ray,  for  if  this 
be  lacking,  the  oxygen  is  no  longer  set  free  or  the  carbon  retained,  and  the 
plant  dies." 

Thus  we  have  a  picture  of  how  the  Christian,  if  born  from  above,  may, 
in  the  sunshine  of  communion  with  Christ,  through  God's  Word,  become 
fruitful  in  a  world  the  ways  of  which  are  but  too  faithfully  suggested  by  the 
animal  kingdom,  manifesting  in  such  a  scene,  as  Christ  manifested  here,  the 
fragrance,  moral  purity  and  lowly  usefulness  in  self-sacrifice  for  others  which 
the  plant  suggests  !  That  "Every  good  gift  and  every  perfect  gift  is  from 
above,  and  cometh  down  from  the  Father  of  lights"  (Jas.  i.  17),  is  also  the 
testimony  of  the  sun,  according  to  Professor  Langley : 

"  The  ox,  the  sheep,  and  the  lamb  feed  on  the  vegetable,  and  we  in  turn 
on  them  (and  on  vegetables  too)  ;  so  that,  though  we  might  eat  our  own 
meals  in  darkness  and  still  live,  the  meals  themselves  are  provided  literally 
at  the  sun's  expense,  virtue  having  gone  out  of  him  to  furnish  eacli  morsel 
we  put  in  our  months." 

Here  we  have  the  type  of  a  Creator  who  is  likewise  "  the  Preserver  of  all 
men"  (I.  Tim.  iv.  10),  giving  over  all  nature  into  their  hands.  Nor  is  He 
at  the  expense  of  all  that  man  enjoys  simply  as  Creator  ;  for  He  can  not 
righteously  preserve  the  unrighteous  and  bestow  gifts  upon  them,  except  as  He 
Himself  pays  the  penalty  for  all  the  evil  toward  which  he  displays  forbear- 
ance. And  so  the  sun  is  also  the  type  of  Him  who  for  His  creatures  has 
been  at  the  expense  of  the  Incarnation,  and  of  the  Atonement  wrought  by 
suffering  all  the  deserts  of  evil  at  the  cross  !  Indeed,  in  this  way  the  Creator 
has  not  merely  provided  nourishment  for  His  creatures  through  creation  and 
providence,  but  has  made  Himself,  and  the  moral  display  of  His  glory  in 
humiliation  and  atoning  death,  the  spiritual  food  of  the  household  of  faith. 
In  John  vi.  32-65  He  presents  Himself  to  men  thus,  as  the  Bread  of  God, 
the  Bread  of  life,  the  Bread  Who  came  down  from  heaven  in  order  that  a 
man  might  eat  thereof,  and  not  die  !  In  His  meek  and  gentle  Manhood, 
as  in  a  prism,  the  dazzling  glory  of  Infinite  Light  has  been  graciously 


47 

refracted,  with  all  the  beautiful  moral  glories  of  God  spread  out,  side  by 
side,  in  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus :  a  softened  diffusion  of  the  Light  which 
does  not  repel  nor  blind  the  poor  sinner,  but  opens  his  eyes  to  behold  the 
glory  of  God,  while  there  is  shed  abroad  in  his  heart  the  love  of  God.  Pro- 
fessor Langley  continues  : 

"  But  while  He  thus  prepares  the  material  for  our  own  bodies,  and  while 
it  is  plain  that  without  Him  we  could  not  exist  any  more  than  the  plant,  the 
processes  by  which  he  acts  grow  more  intricate  and  more  obscure  in  our  own 
higher  organism,  so  that  science  as  yet  only  half  guesses  how  the  sun  makes 
us.  But  the  making  is  done  in  some  way  by  the  sun,  and  so  almost  exclus- 
ively in  every  process  of  life.  .  .  .  To  make  even  the  reader's  hand 
which  holds  this  page,  or  the  eye  which  sees  it,  energy  again  went  out  from 
the  sun  ;  and  in  saying  this  I  am  to  be  understood  in  the  plain  and  common 
meaning  of  the  words.  ...  Is  there  not  a  special  interest  for  us  in  that 
New  Astronomy  which  considers  these  things,  and  studies  the  sun,  not  only 
in  the  heavens  as  a  star,  but  in  its  workings  here,  and  so  largely  in  its 
relations  to  man  ?  " 

Truly  there  is  a  special  interest,  and  great  profit,  provided  that  our  study 
of  the  sun  is  to  enable  us  to  read  aright  deeper  lessons  than  simply  these 
relations  of  creature  to  creature.  But  we  must  carefully  avoid  a  construction 
which  might  be  put  upon  Professor  Langley's  language  here — as  if  the  sun 
could  "make"  the  whole  man,  soul  and  spirit.  It  is  man's  body  alone, 
that  which  links  him  to  the  physical  universe,  which  is  manufactured  and 
replenished  in  the  sun's  laboratory:  soul  and  spirit  are  beyond  his  chemistry, 
though  he  can  fashion  for  them  a  house  of  clay.  If  we  study  not  the  sun  as 
a  type,  we  may  also  forget  that  he  is  after  all  but  a  blind  agent,  and  that  the 
hand  behind  him  is  the  hand  of  God,  and  so  fall  into  the  snare  of  being 
unthankful,  changing  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and  reverencing  and 
serving  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  forever  !  With 
this  qualification,  we  agree  with  the  following: 

"  Since,  then,  we  are  the  children  of  the  sun,  and  our  bodies  a  product 
of  its  rays,  as  much  as  the  ephemeral  insects  that  its  heat  hatches  from  the 
soil,  it  is  a  worthy  problem  to  learn  how  things  earthly  depend  upon  this 
material  ruler  of  our  days." 

Thus  not  alone  is  the  Biblical -Tychonic  theory  equal  to  the  Copernican 
hypothesis  in  its  intrinsic  competence  to  account  for  all  the  observed  phe- 
nomena, but  in  connection  with  it  a  rational  solution  at  once  appears  which 
also  embraces  all  the  phenomena  of  the  physical  universe  in  one  homogen- 
eous relation. 


I  will  now  mention  some  further  objections  to  the  Newtonian  solution 
of  Copernican  theory.  Five  points  were  made  under  this  head  as  an  intro- 
duction to  the  consideration  of  the  Biblical-Tychonic  theory.  The  next 
count  will  therefore  be  the  sixth. 


48 

VI.  To  a  rational  philosopher  it  must  surely  seem  much  against  the  recog- 
nition of  universal  gravitation  as  a  law  of  nature  that  it  remains  an  anomaly 
in  the  universe,  with  no  affinity  to  any  other  known  force.     This  objection 
had  little  weight  in  Newton's  day,  because  the  correlation  of  natural  forces 
was  not  then  a  principle  recognized  by  science.    The  character  of  the  known 
forces  was  then  almost  as  inexplicable  as  that  of  gravitation   itself,  while  it 
remained  to  be  seen  whether  the  postulate  of  universal  attraction  would  not 
prove  a  key  to  reconcile  all  things.      But  now  the  close  relation  of  all  forces 
(gravitation  excepted,  if  we  must  indeed  still  postulate  it)  is  so  well  estab- 
lished, that  were  the  hypothesis  of  universal  gravitation  introduced  in  these 
days,  instead  of  having  the  advantage  of  long  occupation  of  the  field  in  its 
favor,  and   the  powerful  ally  of  universal   prejudice,  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  its  inharmony  with  the  other  and  closely-related  forces  would  bar  it  from 
serious  consideration.      Gravitation   is  an   anomaly  in   the  presence  of  the 
kindred   group,  including  heat,   light,   actinic  energy  and  electricity,   while 
magnetism  is  of  this  kindred.     It  appears  to  be  an  inadequate  deduction  which 
has  declared  that  terrestrial  gravitation  is  not  a  phase  of  magnetism — and 
that  in   the  face  of   the  well-known   fact  that    the  earth   is  a  magnet  with 
magnetic  poles.     Why  is  the  whole  earth  electrical  ? 

VII.  But  not  alone  is  the  theory  of  universal  attraction  an  anomaly: 
it   is  and  always  has  been  contrary  to  reason,  judged  on  the  basis  of  the 
scientific  definition  of  reason  as  applied  to  the  physical  universe.     The  con- 
tradiction here  introduced  into  the  very  foundation  of  modern  science  (for 
Newtonian-Copernican  orthodoxy  is  its  foundation)  is  most  curious  and  most 
significant,  although  scientists  themselves  either  have  mainly  failed  to  face 
the  situation  squarely  in  their  own  minds,  or  else   have  skillfully  avoided 
discussion  of  a  tender  subject  before  the  public.    For  materialism  is  the  badge 
of  that  supreme  aristocracy  and  inner  priesthood  whose  members  consider 
themselves  the  only  pure  scientists,  and  in  their  zeal  against  the  Bible  and  its 
miracle-working  God  they  have  pronounced  a  general  ban  upon  whatever  does 
not  conform  to  known  laws  of   nature,  as  being  irrational  and  manifestly 
false.    And  yet  that  corner-stone  of  scientific  hypothesis,  Newton's  postulate 
of   attraction  as  a  universal    law  of   nature,   requires  of    the   mind  a  blind 
credulity  not  at  all  required  in  order  to  credit  all  the  miracles  of  Scripture  ! 
Kor  the  miracles  of  Scripture  are  the  most  credible  things  in  nature  to  one 
who  accepts  the  only  premise  on  which  Scripture  puts  them  forth — the  pos- 
tulate of  a  personal  God  who  loves  man  and  wishes  to  make  Himself  known 
to  him,  Who  arranged  the  mechanism  of  the  universe  with   the  special  pur- 
pose of  revealing  Himself  to  man  thereby,  and  Who  proves  to  man  that  He 
is  nature's  God  by  demonstrating  His  superiority  to  the  mightiest  laws  which 
lie  has  ordained  for  his  creation  !  ,    Does  the   Bible  ask  me  to  believe  in 
miracles?     Very  well,  since  it  reveals  to  me  a  God  who  can  work  them  ! 
But  the  Bible  does  not  demand    of    me  to  utterly  outrage  my  reason,   by 
requiring  me  to  believe  in  the  miraculous,  while  at  the  same  time  suggesting 
that  there  is  no  personal  God  to  accomplish  the  wonder  ! 


49 

But  this  is  precisely  the  thing  which  modern  science  does,  the  hypothesis 
of  universal  attraction  requiring  just  such  a  prostitution  of  the  human  reason. 
What  is  more,  Newton's  hypothesis  has  been  embraced  by  men  who  were 
perfectly  aware  that  in  accepting  it  as  a  working  basis  they  must  stultify  their 
reason,  for  it  is  well  known  that  Newton  himself  conceded  as  much.  After 
exhausting  every  resource  even  of  his  ingenious  mind  to  find  at  least  some 
rational  basis  for  the  conception  of  universal  gravitation,  since  an  analogy 
in  nature  was  out  of  the  question,  Newton  finally  presented  his  law  on  the 
postulate  of  the  miraculous,  having  conceded  that  to  the  finite  mind  the 
action  of  universal  gravitation  is  paradoxical,  while  the  phenomenon  itself 
is  absolutely  inconceivable — although,  according  to  his  theory,  it  must  be 
true  !  Is  it  not  a  wonder  that  scientists  have  doubted  the  existence  of  a  per- 
sonal God  in  connection  with  a  universe  organized  on  such  a  principle  ? 

The  fundamental  absurdity  of  this  dogma  has  been  frequently  set  forth, 
and  can  be  concisely  put.  Either  space  contains  a  material  medium  or  it 
does  not.  If  it  does  not,  and  yet  every  atom  of  matter  in  the  universe  at- 
tracts every  other,  we  have  the  absurdity  of  matter  acting  through  vast 
spaces  where  it  is  not,  without  the  assistance  of  any  intervening  medium  ! 
The  supposition  outrages  all  we  know  of  nature,  making  a  plaything  of  the 
human  intellect  !  But  if  space  contains  a  material  medium,  and  all  matter 
is  mutually  attractive,  then  the  universe  consists  of  matter  which  is  pushing 
and  jamming  itself  together.  This  has  been  accepted  in  modern  times  as 
the  lesser  of  two  evils,  the  scientist  exerting  his  will-power  to  forget  the 
utter  absurdities  which  it  also  necessitates.  If  the  universe  is  full  of  matter, 
and  all  this  matter  is  pressing  together,  then  of  course  the  universe  has  been 
an  immovable  mass  since  its  creation  !  But  since  the  evidence  everywhere 
before  our  eyes  refutes  this,  there  is  nothing  for  us  except  to  postulate  another 
universal  law,  to  the  effect  that  all  matter  tends  to  separate  !  It  is  perfectly 
plain  that  if  there  is  an  inherent  tendency  in  all  matter  to  qome  together, 
and  at  the  same  time  an  inherent  tendency  to  draw  apart,  the  two  laws  will 
explain  almost  everything,  while  in  working  out  the  details  we  may  always 
conveniently  lose  sight  of  the  fundamental  paradox  !  But  does  the  reader — 
the  uninitiated  lay-reader — think  it  impossible  that  learned  scientists  should 
arrive  at  such  conclusions,  as  the  result  of  all  their  profound  cogitations  over 
the  more-than-miracle  of  Newtonian  attraction  ! 

Let  such  a  reader  consult  Mr.  William  B.  Taylor's  treatise  on  "  Kinetic 
Theories  of  Gravitation,"  published  in  the  Annual  Report  of  the  Smith- 
sonian Institution  for  1876.  Indeed,  this  paper  will  repay  study  on  the  part 
of  anyone  wishing  to  know  more  in  detail  the  depths  of  the  credulity  of 
scientific  minds  in  accepting  the  postulate  of  universal  attraction.  Mr.  Taylor 
cites  Newton's  third  letter  to  Bently,  dated  February  25,  1692-3,  or  about 
ten  years  after  Newton  had  propounded  his  famous  hypothesis,  in  which  he 
says:  "That  gravity  should  be  innate,  inherent,  and  essential  to  matter,  so 
that  one  body  may  act  upon  another  at  a  distance,  through  a  vacuum,  with- 


»    50 

out  the  mediation  of  anything  else,  by  and  through  which  their  action  and 
force  may  be  conveyed  from  one  to  another,  is  to  me  so  great  an  absurdity, 
that  I  believe  no  man  who  has  in  philosophical  matters  a  competent  faculty 
of  thinking  can  ever  fall  into  it."  But  Mr.  Taylor,  who  is  a  devoted  dis- 
ciple of  Newton,  rebukes  sceptics  who  would  use  this  testimony  against 
this  conception  of  gravitation,  on  the  ground  that  Newton  was  himself  com- 
pelled, twenty-five  years  after  penning  this  stricture,  to  embrace  "so  great 
an  absurdity  !  "  For  after  a  quarter  of  a  century  of  vain  search  for  some 
better  conception,  Newton  "despairingly"  asked:  "Have  not  the  small 
particles  of  bodies  certain  powers,  virtues,  or  forces,  by  which  fhty  act  at  a 
distance?  .  .  .  What  I  call  'attraction'  may  be  performed  by  impulse, 
or  by  some  other  means  unknown  to  me."  But  all  this  shows  is  that  in  his 
old  age,  with  a  pet  theory  and  a  reputation  to  sustain,  and  in  the  desperation 
born  of  utter  failure  to  find  a  more  rational  alternative,  Newton  embraced 
an  "absurdity  so  great"  that  he  himself  had  pronounced,  ere  he  realized  he 
should  be  shut  up  to  it,  that  "no  man  who  has  in  philosophical  matters  a 
competent  faculty  of  thinking  can  ever  fall  into  it."  Thus,  according  to  the 
Newton  of  1693,  who  was  in  his  prime,  the  Newton  of  twenty -five  years 
later  had  lost,  through  prejudice,  the  competent  faculty  of  thinking  in 
philosophical  matters  !  And  what  a  commentary  upon  all  his  devoted 
followers  since,  whose  faculty  of  thinking  in  philosophical  matters  has  been 
so  incompetent  that  they,  too,  have  fallen  into  the  same  great  absurdity  ! 

The  well-known  astronomer,  J.  E.  Gore,  published  in  the  National 
Review  (reprinted  in  LitteU's  Living  Age,  No.  2489,  March  12,  1892) 
an  article  based  upon  that  of  Mr.  Taylor,  in  which  he  concedes  the  logic  of 
the  latter's  conclusions.  These  conclusions  are  remarkable.  Having  defined 
the  elements  absolutely  essential  in  any  explanation  of  gravitation,  and  having 
tested  by  this  standard  the  attempts  at  explanation  made  by  the  succession 
of  astronomers  and  physicists  who  have  labored  to  reconcile  the  postulate 
with  human  reason,  only  to  find  them  all  sadly  inadmissible,  Mr.  Taylor 
demonstrates  that  not  an  iota  of  progress  has  been  made  in  two  centuries 
toward  an  explanation  of  gravitation  as  a  kinetic  force.  In  other  words, 
to  conceive  of  gravitation  as  an  active  force  lands  us  in  all  sorts  of  contra- 
dictions. But  to  think  of  work  being  done  by  a  passive  force  is  perhaps  even 
more  ridiculous.  Hence  Mr.  Taylor  declares  that  all  that  is  left  to  us  is  to 
conceive  of  an  "occult"  force  of  universal  attraction!  But  even  this,  of 
itself,  is  wholly  inadequate  to  explain  the  phenomena,  and  so  we  must  double 
the  wonder  of  a  paradox  already  inconceivable.  According  to  Mr.  Taylor 
we  must  conceive  of  an  "occult"  quality  inherent  in  matter  in  virtue  of 
which  the  ultimate  atoms  attract  one  another  whenever  separate  from  one 
another,  and  in  virtue  of  which  they  repel  one  another  whenever  they  are  in 
close  proximity  !  This  is  the  conclusion  of  what  is  probably  the  most  pro- 
found and  comprehensive  investigation  of  this  problem  ever  undertaken. 

For  myself,    I   must   beg  to  decline  it,   even   though   I   must  stand  as  a 


51 

minority  of  one,  or  in  the  company  of  a  few  simple  Christians  like  President 
Kruger,  of  the  Transvaal.  When  it  comes  to  a  question  of  an  "occult" 
force  which  repels  when  it  should  most  powerfully  attract,  and  attracts  when 
it  is  most  free  to  fly  apart — then  I  must  prefer  known  forces  like  electricity 
and  magnetism  and  chemical  energy,  which  are  known  to  produce  both 
attractive  and  repulsive  phenomena,  together  with  the  Biblical -Tychonic 
system,  which  seems  to  be  demonstrable  on  this  basis  without  dethroning 
the  human  reason  in  the  process. 

And  I  would  remind  Christians,  who  have  not  the  faith  to  follow  me  in 
the  unreserved  acceptance  of  the  Biblical  system  of  astronomy,  that  they 
still  have  the  best  of  the  materialists,  even  when  the  latter  have  chosen  their 
own  ground  in  the  dogma  of  Newtonian  infallibility.  The  Christian  may. 
say  :  "  You  tell  me  that  I  must  concede  the  existence  of  an  'occult'  quality 
inherent  in  matter  in  virtue  of  which  the  ultimate  atoms  repel  one  another 
when  in  close  proximity  and  attract  one  another  when  not  in  close  proximity, 
since,  however  paradoxical  the  postulate  may  seem,  the  motions  of  the  celes- 
tial bodies  are  otherwise  inexplicable.  Very  well  ;  only  this  force,  which  to 
the  unenlightened  reason  of  the  most  profound  scientists  is  'occult,'  is  no 
mystery  whatever  to  the  Christian,  who  from  Revelation  has  learned  that  the 
force  which  accomplishes  results  so  remarkable  is  simply  the  fiat  of  the 
Creator  and  Preserver  of  the  universe,  Who  is  ever  '  upholding  all  things  by 
the  word  of  His  power'  (Heb.  i.  3)!"  These  prodigious  labors  of  the 
profoundest  intellects  for  two  centuries  to  show  that  the  universe  can  dis- 
pense with  its  Creator — how  small  the  mouse  they  have  brought  forth  ! 

VIII.  Dr.  Schoepffer  is  absolutely  correct  in  saying  that  gravitation, 
if  consistent  with  the  other  laws  of  nature,  would  prevent  the  axial  rotation 
of  any  body  which  by  gravity  is  maintained  in  equilibrium  in  an  orbit  of 
revolution  about  an  attractive  centre,  with  the  exception  of  a  single  rotation 
during  the  orbital  revolution,  on  an  axis  perpendicular  to  the  plane  of  the 
orbit.  Were  it  true  that  attraction  acted  as  if  concentrated  at  the  centre  of 
attracting  bodies,  there  could  also  be  rotation  on  an  axis  one  of  whose  poles 
was  fixed  at  the  point  on  the  surface  of  the  rotating  body  which  is  ever 
directed  toward  the  centre  of  the  attracting  body  about  which  it  performs  its 
orbital  revolution.  The  only  answer  to  Dr.  Schoepffer  is  the  one  we  have 
considered  :  that  gravitation  is  very  strange  in  its  ways,  very  "  occult,"  and 
makes  no  profession  of  consistency  with  the  other  laws  of  nature  !  Tack  a 
string  to  a  ball,  hold  the  other  end  of  the  string  in  the  fingers,  and  swing  the 
ball  in  a  circle  with  sufficient  velocity  to  keep  the  string  taut :  here  you  have 
the  resolution  of  attractive  pull  and  centrifugal  tendency  known  to  nature. 
Because  the  attracting  pull  is  constant,  throughout  its  orbit  of  revolution, 
the  ball  ever  presents  one  point  on  iff  surface  to  the  attracting  power. 
During  its  orbital  revolution  the  ball  rotates  once  on  an  axis  perpendicular 
to  the  line  of  attraction.  But  as  the  string  twists,  the  ball  may  also  rotate 
many  times  on  an  axis  one  pole  of  which  is  the  point  where  the  string  is 


52 

attached.  The  latter  form  of  rotation  would  not  be  possible  with  a  celestial 
body  moving  about  an  attracting  centre,  for  according  to  theory  the  two 
bodies  would  not  be  held  as  by  a  string  from  centre  to  centre,  or  from  surface 
to  surface,  but  would  be  held  by  innumerable  taut  strings  binding  each 
atom  in  each  body  to  every  atom  in  the  other  body.  This  would  hold  the 
two  bodies,  hemisphere  to  hemisphere,  as  in  a  vise  ;  while  if  one  described 
an  orbit  of  revolution,  the  attracting  centre  must  also  during  this  period 
rotate  once  on  its  axis,  so  as  to  keep  the  same  hemisphere  toward  the  body 
encircling  it.  But  no  celestial  phenomenon  conforms  to  this  supposition. 
If  the  earth  so  responded  to  the  moon,  the  latter  would  always  be  vertical 
to  a  certain  point  on  the  earth's  surface  ;  from  any  given  point  on  one-half 
the  earth's  surface,  would  always,  by  day  and  by  night,  appear  in  the  same 
spot  in  the  heavens  ;  and  from  all  parts  of  the  other  hemisphere  of  the  earth 
would  always  be  invisible.  It  is  equally  plain  that  if  the  sun  responded  thus 
to  one  of  the  planets,  he  could  not  at  the  same  time  do  so  to  any  of  the 
others  ;  whereas,  in  fact,  he  responds  thus  to  none,  his  axial  rotation  being 
synchronous  with  no  planetary  revolution. 

But  it  seems  legitimate  to  conceive  that  large  attracting  centres,  though 
practically  controlling  smaller  encircling  bodies,  would  not  themselves  be 
controlled  by  these  smaller  bodies.  But  it  would  still  hold  true  that  the  smaller 
body  would  beheld  as  in  a  vise,  with  one  hemisphere  ever  toward  the  attract- 
ing centre  of  its  orbit,  for  the  power  which  held  it  in  its  orbit,  according  to 
theory,  would  be  exerting  all  this  power  rigidly  on  each  of  the  atoms  of  the 
revolving  body  throughout  its  orbit.  The  result  would  be  that  the  smaller 
body  would  perform  its  orbital  revolution  with  one  hemisphere  ever  toward 
the  attracting  centre.  This  should  be  true  alike  of  Newtonian-Copernican 
gravitation,  and  of  Biblical-Tychonic  electro-magnetism.  As  Dr.  Schoepffer 
pointed  out,  this  is  what  we  find  in  the  case  of  the  moon,  whose  attracting 
centre  is  the  earth.  His  argument  is  now  notably  emphasized  by  the  con- 
clusion of  Schiaparelli,  Lowell  and  others,  attesting  the  like  phenomena  in 
the  orbital  revolutions  of  Mercury  and  Venus  about  the  sun.  Thus  if  the 
Moon,  Venus  and  Mercury  conform  in  this  particular  to  the  theory  that  all 
the  atoms  of  each  are  attracted  by  all  the  atoms  of  sun  and  earth,  then  it  is 
certain  that  the  axial  rotation  of  the  earth  and  of  the  superior  planets  is  in 
direct  violation  to  Newtonian  theory. 

IX.  A  special  point  should  be  made  of  the  fact  that  Newton's  postulate 
contradicts  observed  phenomena,  unless  we  agree  to  think  of  the  attracting 
force  of  each  body  as  acting  as  if  concentrated  at  its  centre  ;  while  (i)  the 
very  terms  of  the  hypothesis  of  universal  attraction  make  this  assumption  a 
confessed  fiction,  so  that  (2)  the  physical  explanation  of  axial  rotation  on 
this  basis  is  absolutely  fraudulent.  The  first  of  these  propositions  we  may 
state  thus :  either  the  hypothesis,  that  every  atom  in  the  universe  attracts 
every  other  atom,  is  true,  in  which  case  it  cannot  be  mathematically  correct 
to  consider  the  attracting  power  of  spherical  masses  containing  many  atoms 


53 

as  if  concentrated  in  one  atom  at  their  centre  ;  or,  if  the  last  proposition  is 
mathematically  correct,  then  every  atom  in  the  universe  does  not  attract 
every  other  atom,  and  the  entire  structure  of  Newtonian  philosophy  falls  to 
the  ground.  But  theoretical  astronomers  ask  us  to  conceive  of  the  attracting 
power  of  spherical  masses  as  if  concentrated  at  their  centres  simply  as  a  con- 
venient approximate  of  the  truth,  to  facilitate  mathematical  demonstration  ; 
for  it  is  plain  that  the  celestial  bodies  must  be  dealt  with  as  if  mere  points, 
in  order  that  mathematical  astronomy  may  secure  the  terms  on  which  its 
conclusions  are  based.  To  this  I  object,  (i)  that  this  concession  cannot 
properly  be  asked  of  one  who  does  not  concede  in  advance  the  truth  of  the 
Copernican  postulate  of  immense  distances,  and  (2)  even  of  one  who  does 
concede  the  postulate  of  immense  distances,  the  concession  that  the 
attracting  power  is  concentrated  at  the  centre  of  spherical  bodies  cannot 
properly  be  asked  when  the  relations  of  our  solar  system  are  the  subject  of 
investigation.  For  if  we  concede  the  inconceivable  distances  assigned  to 
the  fixed  stars,  in  dealing  mathematically  with  bodies  at  such  distances  no 
very  appreciable  error  would  result  from  regarding  them  as  mere  points. 
But  in  the  solar  system  it  is  not  quite  so.  Shall  we  build  up  theory  on  the 
fiction  that  the  sun's  attracting  power  is  concentrated  at  his  centre,  when  we 
reflect  that  his  estimated  diameter  is  so  immense  that  within  its  space  the 
moon  could  describe  her  present  orbit  about  the  earth,'  and  could  still  do  so 
were  her  orbit  if  times  its  present  size,  or  when  we  reflect  that  the  sun's 
estimated  diameter  is  about  i-ioSth  of  its  estimated  distance  from  the  earth? 
Still  this  is  comparatively  trivial  and  may  be  allowed  for  in  results.  The 
serious  and  fraudulent  feature  consists  in  inducing  us  to  concede,  for  the 
convenience  of  mathematicians,  that  the  attracting  force  of  spherical  bodies 
is  concentrated  at  their  centres,  while  on  the  basis  of  this  concession  they 
then  go  on  to  assume  an  axial  rotation  for  the  earth  and  planets  which  would 
only  be  possible  in  case  the  convenient  fiction,  of  the  concentration  of  the 
resultant  of  gravitation  at  the  centres  of  bodies,  were  a  physical  fact.  Let 
us  take  the  case  of  the  earth.  The  axial  rotation  assumed  for  the  earth,  in 
order  to  explain  the  phenomenon  of  day  and  night,  is  mechanically  possible 
only  on  one  of  two  suppositions :  (i)  in  case  it  is  a  physical  fact  that  the 
attracting  power  of  the  sun  is  concentrated  in  a  pull  upon  the  atom  at  the 
earth's  centre,  and  affects  no  other  atom  in  the  earth's  mass  ;  (2)  in  case  the 
rotation  of  the  earth  is  caused  by  some  constant  force  which  is  more  powerful 
than  the  sun's  attracting  power  exerted  upon  the  earth  ;  for  if  this  attracting 
power  of  the  sun  is  concentrated  upon  each  and  every  atom  in  the  earth's 
mass  (as  theory  requires),  and  yet  these  atoms,  so  acted  upon,  can  be  moved 
in  a  direction  opposite  to  that  of  the  sun's  pull  by  some  force  which  causes 
the  earth's  axial  rotation,  then  this  rotating  force  must  be  capable  of  con- 
stantly overcoming  the  attracting  force  which  holds  the  earth  in  her  orbit ! 
But  if  this  be  so,  what  then  holds  the  earth  in  her  orbit?  Thus  it  has  only 
been  by  means  of  the  fiction  that  the  power  of  the  sun,  which  holds  the  earth 


54 

in  the  orbit  assigned  to  her  by  theory,  is  concentrated  in  a  pull  upon  the 
earth's  centre,  that  astronomers  and  physicists  have  been  able  to  conceive  for 
the  earth  a  daily  rotation  on  an  axis  nearly  perpendicular  to  the  plane  of  her 
orbit.  Yet  Newton's  postulate  of  universal  attraction  is  fundamentally  false 
unless  every  atom  of  the  earth's  mass  is  attracted  by  the  sun's  mass  ;  while  if 
the  sun  attracts  all  fhe  atoms  in  the  earth's  mass,  then  instead  of  speaking 
so  frequently  of  centrifugal  force  as  a  product  of  the  earth's  rotation,  as  if 
the  earth  could  rotate  under  these  circumstances  without  the  agency  of  tre- 
mendous energy,  our  philosophers  must  seek  some  powerful,  independent 
("occult"?)  force  to  produce  the  rotation — one  powerful  enough  to  induce 
a  rotation  of  the  earth  which  can  only  be  obtained  by  the  overcoming  of  the 
attracting  force  !  Thus  the  two  motions  which  Copernican  hypothesis  neces- 
sarily postulates  for  the  earth,  are  mutually  destructive  when  explained  on 
the  hypothesis  of  universal  attraction.  Mathematical  astronomers  have  always 
avoided  the  difficulty  by  a  glaring  sophistry :  the  invention  of  a  fiction  as  the 
very  first  step  in  their  so-called  "solution,"  while  this  fiction  involves  the 
positive  contradiction  of  the  fundamental  hypothesis  employed  in  the 
"  solution"  ! 

X.  Since  the  postulate  of  axial  rotation  (except  as  exhibited  by  the  moon, 
and  probably  by  Venus  and  Mercury)  is  irreconcilable  with  Newton's  postu- 
late of  universal  attraction,  it  follows  that  much  of  accepted  astronomical 
theory  contradicts  Newton's  postulate.  The  evolutionary  nebular  theory  of  the 
universe,  in  vogue  since  Laplace  gave  it  currency,  makes  axial  rotation  its 
basic  principle.  Moreover,  the  theory  of  tidal  friction,  suggested  by  Kant 
and  developed  by  Lord  Kelvin  and  Prof.  G.  H.  Darwin,  is  now  quite  popu- 
lar, and  requires  axial  rotation  of  the  celestial  bodies  as  its  basis.  Axial 
rotation  generates  centrifugal  force,  while  the  latter  tends  to  hold  back  the 
liquid  matters  on  the  surface  of  the  rotating  body,  thus  causing  a  tidal  fric- 
tion which  gradually  retards  the  rotation.  Prof.  G.  H.  Darwin  solemnly 
proclaims  a  time  when  the  Moon,  thrown  off  by  the  centrifugal  force  of  the 
earth's  swiftly-rotating  mass,  was  very  close  to  the  earth,  each  of  these  bodies 
then  making  a  revolution  on  its  axis  in  about  two  hours  !  Tidal  friction 
has  slackened  the  rotation  of  the  earth  until  an  axial  revolution  now  requires 
about  twenty-four  hours,  while  the  same  agency  has  entirely  overcome  the 
rotating  energy  of  the  Moon  !  Prof.  J.  J.  See  has  extended  the  application 
to  the  fixed  stars,  explaining  the  development  of  so-called  "  double  stars"  on 
the  hypothesis  of  tidal  friction,  while  he  and  others  naturally  apply  the  same 
solution  to  the  new  discovery  respecting  Mercury  and  Venus.  In  fact, 
astronomers  would  not  know  how  to  account  for  the  spherical  form  of  the 
celestial  bodies,  on  an  evolutionary  basis  (which  is  very  dear  to  them),  except 
on  the  hypothesis  of  axial  rotation.  Yet  none  of  these  gentlemen  have  yet 
explained  how  the  heavenly  bodies  may  be  controlled  by  universal  attraction, 
while  at  the  same  time  an  axial  rotation  which  necessarily  annuls  the  attract- 
ing force,  is  constantly  at  work  !  It  is  also  true  that  to  concede  the  princi- 


pie  of  tidal  friction  is  to  concede  the  force  of  the  arguments  against  axial 
rotation  advanced  by  Tycho  Brahe,  and  by  many  since. 

XI.  A  very  serious  objection  to  Newton's  postulate  of  universal  attraction 
is  the  fact  that  its  best  friends  are  becoming  sceptical  concerning  its  truth. 
We  have  cited  Professor  Hall,  Dr.  Carl  Neumann  and  Professor  Seeliger  on 
this  subject.  I  may  also  mention  an  article  by  Kurt  Laves,  which  he  opens 
as  follows  : 

"Certain  phenomena  in  the  motions  of  some  of  our  planets  have  led  astron- 
omers to  question  the  correctness  of  Newton's  law  of  gravitation  as  a  general 
law  of  nature.  It  is  the  purpose  of  this  paper,  first  to  point  out  those  phe- 
nomena which  cannot  be  explained  from  Newton's  law,  and  second  to  give  a 
short  outline  of  the  nature  of  those  laws  which  have  been  proposed  to  replace 
that  of  Newton."  * 

The  first  of  the  inexplicable  phenomena  mentioned  by  Mr.  Laves  is  the 
well-known  difficulty  in  connection  with  Mercury.  He  declares  that  the  dis- 
crepancy in  the  motion  of  this  planet  "of  41  "  between  theory  and  observa- 
tion cannot  be  explained  in  any  way  when  we  start  from  Newton's  law  of 
general  attraction." 

He  continues  : 

"The  other  differences  of  the  same  nature  which  have  been  brought  to 
light  are  those  in  the  longitude  of  the  perihelion  of  Mars,  the  longitude  of 
the  nodes  of  Venus  and  the  famous  secular  acceleration  of  the  motion  of  the 
Moon." 

His  statement  of  the  laws  proposed  in  substitution  for  that  of  Newton  is 
technical,  and  so  will  not  be  reproduced  here.  He  rejects  that  proposed  by 
Professor  Asaph  Hall,  on  the  following  grounds : 

"  In  the  theory  of  the  Moon  the  agreement  between  theory  and  observation 
would  be  spoiled.  Besides  there  is  no  doubt  that  astronomers  and  physicists 
would  be  extremely  slow  in  accepting  a  law  which  is  made  just  to  fit  our 
present  knowledge  of  existing  discrepancies  for  a  general  law  of  gravitation 
in  the  manner  indicated." 

lie  continues  : 

"  The  other  laws  that  have  been  proposed  deserve  more  attention.  They 
all  have  this  in  common  that  they  consist  of  two  parts,  of  which  the  first  is 
the  expression  of  Newton's  law  ;  the  second,  an  additional  term  depending 
upon  the  time.  These  laws  have  been  constructed  in  electro-dynamical 
theories  and  bear  the  name  of  their  inventors.  They  are  the  laws  of  Gauss, 
Weber,  Riemann  and  Clausius." 

His  discussion  of  them  is  too  technical  for  any  one  not  familiar  with  the 
mathematical  expression  of  Newton's  law.  I  will  add  his  reference  to  Pro- 
fessor Seeliger's  demonstration,  and  comment  upon  it : 

"  It  is  of  interest  to  notice  that  Professor  Seeliger  has  discussed  the  question 

*  "  On  Some  Modern  Attempts  to  Replace  Newton's  Law  of  Attraction  by  Other 
Laws,"  Popular  Astronomy,  February,  1898,  pp.  513-18. 


56 

whether  Newton's  law  of  attraction  can  be  regarded  as  a  universal  law  of 
gravitation  in  a  series  of  papers  published  in  the  Astronomische  Nachrichten 
(Numbers  3287,  3292  and  3304),  starting  from  an  entirely  different  point  of 
view  than  that  outlined  before. 

"  Professor  Seeliger  makes  the  assumption  that  the  total  mass  of  all  the 
matter  in  the  universe  is  infinite  and  then  proves  that  if  we  apply  Newton's 
law  to  the  infinite  universe  we  shall  be  led  to  contradictions.  We  have  thus 
.to  assume  either  the  one  or  the  other  of  the  following  assumptions: 

"  I.  The  total  mass  of  the  universe  is  infinite  and  then  we  cannot  regard 
Newton's  law  to  be  the  rigorously  exact  expression  for  the  attracting  forces 
acting  in  it  ;  or, 

"  2.  Newton's  law  is  rigorously  correct  and  then  we  must  conclude  that 
infinite  parts  of  the  space  cannot  be  filled  with  mass  of  finite  density. 

"  It  is  certainly  more  logical  to  assume  the  first  and  regard  Newton's  law 
as  an  approximative  formula  which  needs  supplementary  terms,  the  nature 
of  which  has  not  yet  been  ascertained.'1 

XII.  I  cite  another  witness,  Professor  Simon  Newcomb,  one  of  the  most 
eminent  of  mathematical  astronomers  now  living.     On  the  subject  of  the 
discrepancies  between  observed  phenomena  and   Newtonian  theory,  he  has 
recently  written  as  follows  : 

"  One  of  these  deviations  is  in  the  rotation  of  the  earth.  Sometimes,  for 
several  years  at  a  time,  it  seems  to  revolve  a  little  faster,  and  then  again  a 
little  slower.  The  changes  are  very  slight  ;  they  can  be  detected  only  by 
the  most  laborious  and  refined  methods  ;  yet  they  must  have  a  cause,  and  we 
should  like  to  know  what  that  cause  is.  The  moon  shows  a  similar  irregu- 
larity of  motion.  For  half  a  century,  perhaps  through  a  whole  century,  she 
will  go  around  the  earth  a  little  ahead  of  her  regular  rate,  and  then  for 
another  half  century  or  more  she  will  fall  behind.  The  changes  are  very 
small  ;  they  would  never  have  been  seen  with  the  naked  eye,  yet  they  exist. 
What  is  their  cause  ?  Mathematicians  have  vainly  spent  years  of  study  in 
trying  to  answer  this  question.  The  orbit  of  Mercury  is  found  by  observa- 
tion to  have  a  slight  motion  which  mathematicians  have  vainly  tried  to 
explain."  *  » 

XIII.  I  believe  the  secret  of  the  approximate  fitness  of  Newton's  law  to 
express  mathematically  the  observed  relations  of  the  solar  system  is  due  to  a 
fact  which  indicates   that  it  is  not  a  true  law  of  nature  :  namely,  that  it  is  a 
hybrid  between  empiricism  and  a  guess  which  will  be  pronounced  fortunate 
or  unfortunate,  according  to  the  point  of  view.     That  is  to  say,  the  guess 
was  fortunate  if  we  so  esteem  Newton's  success  in  leaving  a  name  which  has 
since  been  upon  every  tongue,  though  at  the  cost  of  the  propagation  of  error ; 

*  Article,  "  The  Unsolved  Problems  of  Astronomy,"  McClure's  Magazine,  July, 
1899.  Some  of  the  points  discussed  in  this  article  were  also  touched  upon  in  an  address  by 
Professor  Newcomb,  entitled,  "  The  Problems  of  Astronomy,"  and  printed  in  the  Annual 
Report  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution  for  1896. 


57 

while  it  was  most  unfortunate  in  view  of  the  prosperity  of  this  error,  retard- 
ing the  progress  of  more  worthy  investigation,  and  instilling  false  conceptions 
on  moral  questions  of  the  greatest  moment.  The  fact  that  Newton's  law 
evidently  expresses  the  equations  of  the  solar  mechanism  with  approximate 
accuracy  is  the  reason  given  by  Professor  Newcomb,  Professor  Hall,  and 
most  others,  for  still  believing  that  the  postulate  of  universal  attraction  can- 
not be  fundamentally  false.  But  there  is  an  explanation  which  appears  to 
me  to  reconcile  every  fact  in  the  case. 

We  must  remember  that  Newton  had  Kepler's  empirical  laws  before 
him — laws  deduced  from  the  well-nigh  daily  observations  of  Tycho  Brahe, 
which  had  been  carried  on  with  remarkabk  accuracy  through  many  years, 
and  therefore  gave  a  very  close  approximation  to  a  true  mathematical  state- 
ment of  the  planetary  motions  about  the  sun.  Were  it  not  so,  could  Kepler's 
three  laws  have  remained  the  practical  basis  of  astronomical  calculation  to 
the  present  time  ? 

For  the  sake  of  argument,  let  us  assume  that  the  electro-magnetic  theory 
of  heat,  light  and  solar  radiation  is  now  demonstrated,  and  that  now  we  all 
recognize  electro-magnetism  as  the  force  which  performs  the  offices  in  the 
solar  system  formerly  assigned  to  universal  attraction.  The  genesis  of  Newton's 
close  guess  at  once  becomes  apparent. 

In  seeking  a  solution  in  the  attraction  the  earth  exerts  upon  all  bodies  on 
its  surface,  Newton  was  on  the  right  track,  for  this  terrestrial  attraction  is 
simply  a  manifestation  of  the  electro-magnetism  which  we  now  assume  to  be 
the  great  force  of  nature.  In  extending  the  application  of  this  attraction  to 
the  moon  in  his  hypothesis,  Newton  made  jaiother  correct  deduction.  But 
in  failing  to  identify  the  earth's  attraction  af'^a  form  of  magnetism,  Newton 
missed  his  clue.  For  had  he  identified  terrestrial  attraction  with  magnetism, 
he  could  have  experimented  with  magnets,  would  probably  have  discovered 
that  their  attraction  is  exerted  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance,  and  so 
would  have  obtained  this  factor  for  his  test  with  the  Moon.  But  having 
missed  this  clue  in  a  legitimate  search,  he  unfortunately  obtained  the  identi- 
cal factor  in  an  empirical  way,  which  worked  the  mischief  of  enabling  him  to 
approximate  the  mathematical  expression  of  the  mechanical  effect  of  the  real 
force  which  controls  the  solar  system,  but  in  the  interest  of  the  postulate  of 
a  force  which  had  no  existence  outside  his  imagination,  which  even  to  his 
own  mind  appeared  to  be  a  great  absurdity,  the  postulate  of  which  no  rational 
philosopher  could  be  guilty  of  falling  into,  and  which  is  utterly  irreconcilable 
with  the  observed  mechanics  of  nature.  The  observations  of  Tycho  Brahe, 
embodied  in  Kepler's  laws,  had  revealed  the  fact  that  the  velocities  of  the 
planets  are  not  uniform  throughout  their  orbits,  but  are  rapidly  accelerated 
as  the  planets  approach  the  sun,  while  they  diminish  as  the  planets  recede 
from  the  sun.  Newton  saw  that  this  acceleration  appeared  to  result  from  some 
influence  of  the  sun,  the  power  of  which  was  about  inversely  as  the  square 
of  the  distance  between  sun  and  planet.  Since  he  was  to  make  a  test  to  learn 


58 

whether  the  earth's  attraction  extended  to  the  Moon,  and  since  he  also  sus- 
pected that  the  secret  of  the  relation  of  earth  and  Moon  was  also  the  secret 
of  the  relation  between  sun  and  planets,  he  applied  this  deduction  from  the 
acceleration  of  the  velocities  of  the  planets  to  his  test  with  the  moon.  Thus 
Newton  obtained  a  factor,  based  on  actual  observation  of  the  mechanical 
operations  of  the  electro-magnetism  by  means  of  which  the  sun  controls  the 
planets,  as  recorded  by  Tycho  Brahe  and  formulated  into  laws  by  Kepler, 
and  utilized  this  factor  to  give  currency  to  a  false  and  irrational  postulate  of 
an  inconceivable  force. 

XIV.  That  Newton's  law  of  gravitation  is  an  empirical  formula  which  is 
only  approximately  correct,  has  been  evidenced  from   Newton's  time   to  the 
present,  in   the  fact  that  this  formula  has  proven  inaccurate  in  those  cases 
where  it  can  be  most  rigorously  tested.     If  theory  and  observation  cannot 
be  shown  to  exactly  coincide  in  the  case  of  the  Moon,  then  we  cannot  trust 
the  appearance  of  coincidence  in  the  case  of  the  celestial  bodies  further 
removed.     The  Moon  is  the  only  celestial  body  whose  distance  can  be  meas- 
ured by  means  of  a  base  line  drawn  on  the  earth's  surface,  giving  such  a  basis 
for  the  estimation  of  her  size,  volume  and  mass.     Hence  if  discrepancy  be- 
tween theory  and  observation  is  found  in  the  case  of  the  Moon,  where  our 
observations  are  the  most  exact  possible,  it  requires  a  strong  bias  in  favor  of 
theory  to  inspire  confidence  in  the  apparent  harmony  between  theory  and 
observation  in  the  case  of  more  remote  bodies,  since  this  appearance  of  har- 
mony is  probably  due  to  the  necessary  imperfection  of  the  testimony  of  the 
observations  under  such  circumstances.     We  would  be  justified  in  this  con- 
clusion, even  if  the  Moon  affqjded  all  the  discrepancies.     But  what  shall  we 
say,  when  we  reflect  that  tbJfclhree  celestial  bodies,  whose  respective  dis- 
tances from  us  make  them  the  most  competent,  after  the  Moon,  to  bear 
witness,  namely,    Mars,  Venus  and   Mercury,  are  the  very  ones  which  also 
disclose  discrepancies,   while  our  own   earth   likewise  fails  to  respond  to 
theory  in   certain    respects?     Certainly  great    "faith"   is   required   of   the 
astronomers  who  in  the  face  of  such  facts  still  esteem  Newton's  formula  to 
be  the  exact  mathematical  expression  of  a  great  natural  force  ! 

XV.  Granting  that  Newton's  formula  is  an  approximate  expression  of  the 
action  of  electro-magnetism  through  space,  and  thus  eliminating  the  "occult  " 
paradox  of  gravitation,  is  it  yet  clear  why  Newton's  formula  is  only  an  approxi- 
mation ?     Perhaps  not  entirely  ;  but  it  seems  now  certain  that  the  omission 
of  a  time-element  in  Newton's  formula  is  one  source  of  error.     Faraday  long 
ago  thought  it  inconceivable  that  a  force  like  gravitation    "acts  without 
occupying  time."     To  this  was  objected  the  mathematical  demonstrations  of 
Laplace  and  others,  that  gravitation  must  act  instantaneously .^since  otherwise 
irregularities  would  occur  which  observation  would  readily  detect.     But  the 
moment  we  substitute  electro-magnetism  for  gravitation  this  objection  appears 
to  fall  to  the  ground  ;  for  in  this  case  the  celestial  bodies  are  controlled  by  a 
constant  succession  of  wave-pulses  from  the  sun,  and  since  there  is  no  inter- 


59 

mission  in  this  succession,  the  effect  produced  is  the  same  as  would  be  that 
of  instantaneously-acting  gravitation,  could  we  conceive  of  such  a  thing. 

Hence  the  true  solution  of  this  problem  would  certainly  seem  to  be  in  the 
line  of  the  investigations  of  Faraday,  Maxwell,  Helmholtz,  Hertz,  Heavi- 
side,  Boltzmann  and  their  fellow-laborers.  As  is  well  known,  Hertz  suc- 
ceeded in  producing  electrical  waves  in  the  laboratory  in  1888,  at  once 
demonstrating  their  finite  velocity  of  propagation,  and  affording  a  powerful 
argument  in  favor  of  Maxwell's  theory  that  light  is  simply  one  phase  of 
electro-magnetic  action.  In  view  of  this,  Mr.  Kurt  Laves  seems  perfectly 
justified  in  saying  that  careful  attention  is  due  to  attempts  to  reform 
Newton's  formula  by  supplying  a  time-element  deduced  from  electro- 
dynamical  investigations.  If  it  is  possible  to  ascertain  the  velocity  of 
electrical  wave-propagation  by  means  of  experiments  on  the  earth,  this 
may  solve  the  problem,  and  at  the  same  time  afford  a  new  means  of  esti- 
mating the  distances,  sizes,  volumes  and  masses  in  the  solar  system. 

XVI.  Yet  not  alone  is  Newtonian  theory  found  wanting,  but  it  is  an 
undoubted  fact  that  astronomers  as  a  class  have  abandoned  the  Copernican 
hypothesis  of  the  universe,  as  it  was  conceived  by  Copernicus,  Gallileo, 
Kepler  and  Newton.  The  unrest  long  felt  by  astronomers  on  this  score  is 
perhaps  illustrated  by  the  following  account  of  interviews  with  German 
astronomers : 

"  One  who  doubted  the  possibility  of  the  Copernican  system  desired  to  be 
enlightened  about  it,  and  went  to  Alexander  v.  Humboldt,  who  was  indeed 
ever  the  first  refuge  of  those  seeking  information,  and  was,  too,  so  com- 
plaisant that  he  sent  nobody  away,  that  he  even  conscientiously  answered 
each  letter.  The  visitor  was  friendly  [sic]  received  by  Alexander  v.  Hum- 
boldt, and  when  he  laid  before  him  his  doubt  about  the  Copernican  system, 
got  for  answer  the  memorable  words  :  '  I  have  known,  too,  for  a  long  time, 
that  we  have  no  arguments  for  the  Copernican  system,  but  I  shall  never 
dare  to  be  the  first  to  attack  it.  Don't  rush  into  the  wasps'  nest.  You 
will  but  bring  upon  yourself  the  scorn  of  the  thoughtless  multitude.  If 
once  a  famous  astronomer  arises  against  the  present  conception,  I  will 
communicate,  too,  my  observations ;  but  to  come  forth  as  the  first  against 
opinions  which  the  world  has  become  fond  of — I  don't  feel  the  courage.' 

"  P'rom  Humboldt  our  doubter  went  to  Encke.  Here,  indeed,  he  was 
not  friendly  received.  In  a  surly  manner  Encke  declared  that  astrono- 
mers had  something  better  to  do  than  to  meddle  with  hypotheses  ;  he  had 
no  time  to  teach  every  one  who  had  any  doubts  ;  there  were  books  enough 
about  astronomy — these  he  should  read.  The  doubter  replied  that  he  had 
already  read  the  books  written  for  the  general  public  by  Littrow  and 
Mudler,  but  he  had  found  in  them  no  reliable  information.  '  Encke  re- 
marked on  that,  that 'if  these  books  did  not  satisfy  him,  he,  too,  could 
not  give  him  further  advice. 

"  In  1854  our  doubter  visited  Carl  v.  Raumer  at  Erlangen,  who  avowed 


60 

to  him  openly  that  he,  too,  was  not  fond  of  the  Copernican  hypothesis, 
but  had  never  dared  do  more  than  utter  vague  objections  against  it.  Thus 
in  his  '  Croisades,'  p.  119,  where  he  writes:  'Now,  indeed,  each  school- 
master, according  to  hearsay,  teaches  that  the  earth  moves  round  the  sun, 
without  thinking  in  the  least  about  exerting  himself  and  his  scholars  to 
perceive  the  planetary  movement.'  When  the  doubter  left  Raumer,  the 
latter  congratulated  him  on  his  purpose  of  helping  truth  to  her  rights  ;  he 
was,  however,  doubtful  whether  it  would  in  a  short  time  be  possible  to 
vanquish  the  fanaticism  of  the  world. 

"At  Munich  our  doubter  visited  Lamont,  director  of  the  observatory. 
Lamont  said  to  him  :  '  You  and  the  world  in  general  are  in  error  ;  never 
yet  has  any  real  astronomer  spoken  of  a  Copernican  system  ;  we  only 
know  a  Copernican  hypothesis.  Whether  this  may  be  true  or  erroneous 
does  not  matter  at  all  for  each  genuine  astronomer.'  The  doubter  replied 
that  he  knew  very  well,  but  then  surely  one  should  not  abandon  lay  peo- 
ple to  the  presumption  that  astronomy  takes  the  Copernican  hypothesis 
for  a  truth.  '  I  have  never  meddled  with  lay  astronomy,'  said  Lamont, 
'  if  Littrow  and  Miidler  instil  superstition  into  the  people  by  selling 
hypothesis  for  truth,  that  is  their  affair.' 

"At  Gottingen  our  doubter  made  the  acquaintance  of  the  astronomer 
Gauss,  who  met  him  in  the  most  friendly  manner,  aided  him  with  books 
and  allowed  him  to  apply  to  him  at  each  time  when  he  thought  himself 
to  have  need  of  his  counsel.  The  doubter  communicated  to  Gauss  the 
course  of  his  investigations  made  hitherto  ;  he  told  him  of  his  having  found 
that  all  the  great  thinkers,  such  as  Schelling  and  Hegel,  had  criticised  the 
transcendenta  suppositions  of  the  Copernicans,  while  only  little  spirits  and 
uneducated  folk  claimed  the  right  of  not  only  scorning  as  a  fool,  but  even 
persecuting  with  wild  fanaticism,  him  who  did  not  agree  with  the  chorus  of 
general  opinion.  Gauss  avowed  to  the  doubter  that  every  new  discovery  in 
astronomy  filled  him  with  new  doubts  about  the  dominant  system.  When 
our  doubter  communicated  to  him  that  Alexander  v.  Humboldt  had  de- 
clared he  would  likewise  arise  immediately  against  the  present  conception, 
if  some  famous  astronomer  would  declare  himself  against  the  dominant 
system,  Gauss  answered:  '  Aye,  if  I  were  twenty  years  younger  ! ' 

"  The  astronomers  of  our  days  [1885]  say:  Everybody  will  understand 
that  an  astronomer  of  the  present  time  cannot  take  up  any  other  system 
than  that  of  Copernicus,  though  it  were  but  by  way  of  trial.  They  assert 
that  the  system  of  Copernicus  is  the  only  possible  one,  the  eternal  foun- 
dation of  all  further  progress  of  astronomy,  that  with  the  system  of  Coper- 
nicus the  whole  of  astronomy  stands  or  falls,  and  that  without  it  we  must 
renounce  all  explanation,  all  scientifically  founded  prediction."  * 

XVII.   Although  orthodox  astronomers  now  generally  concede  the  main 

*  "  The  Fixed  Idea  of  Astronomical  Theory,"  by  August  Tischner.  Leipzig,  1885, 
PP-  33-35- 


61 

point  advanced  by  Mr.  Tischner  against  the  Copernican  hypothesis,  the 
statement  of  the  case  by  Mr.  Tischner  may  help  any  one  who  is  not  familiar 
with  the  nature  of  the  difficulty  to  a  better  conception.  In  the  "Intro- 
duction "  to  the  tract  from  which  we  have  cited,  he  says  : 

"It  was  as  an  explanation  of  the  phenomena  of  heaven  that  the  theory 
of  a  fixed  earth  in  the  centre  of  the  universe  was  stated ;  this  theory  was 
found  to  be  untenable,  when  the  movement  of  the  earth  was  recognized, 
and  now  theory  based  itself  on  a  fixed  sun.  But  afterwards  it  was  dis- 
covered that  even  the  sun  is  not  fixed,  but  transposes  himself  in  space. 
The  conviction,  too,  was  arrived  at  that  not  only  the  sun  moves  in  mundane 
space,  but  also  that  the  stars,  too,  are  not  fixed,  but  in  motion.  In  short, 
in  the  universe  there  is  no  immovable  thing,  neither  a  fixed  earth,  nor  a 
fixed  sun,  nor  fixed  stars.  Now,  instead  of  stating  or  seeking  some  theory 
based  upon  the  general  movement  of  all  the  heavenly  bodies,  mankind 
has  become  so  enamored  of  the  idea  of  a  fixed  sun,  that  no  astronomer  has 
the  courage  to  come  forward  in  order  to  demonstrate  that  the  present 
conception  of  the  universe  is  no  longer  tenable.  They  have  even  dared 
to  affirm,  that  it  is  quite  irrelevant  to  theory  whether  the  sun  is  considered 
as  fixed  or  as  in  motion  ;  for  astronomers  say,  '  we  may  consider  the  sun 
as  being  at  rest.'  " 

If  Mr.  Tischner  can  be  justified  in  criticising  astronomers  for  clinging 
to  a  hypothesis  which  they  have  themselves  ceased  to  credit,  he  certainly 
cannot  be  for  insinuating  that  "mankind  has  become  so  enanjored"  of  this 
conception  that  astronomers  have  not  had  the  courage  to  expose  the  error. 
Where  did  the  "little  spirits  and  uneducated  folk,"  of  whom  Mr.  Tischner 
complains,  obtain  the  basis  for  "the  chorus  of  general  opinion"  as  to  the 
system  of  the  physical  universe?  From  the  astronomical  priestcraft,  who 
industriously  have  inculcated  the  opinion  that  astronomical  orthodoxy  was 
long  ago  established  on  a  basis  of  mathematical  infallibility,  so  that  the 
Bible,  or  any  other  venerable  authority  which  should  seem  to  conflict  with 
astronomical  dogma,  is  necessarily  impeached  !  It  is  a  very  pretty  tale 
that  fear  of  mankind — of  the  "little  spirits  and  uneducated  folk" — has 
withheld  astronomers  from  the  exposure  of  the  groundlessness  of  the 
popular  belief  in  astronomical  infallibility  !  Astronomers  have  been  slow  to 
expose  themselves  and  their  boasted  "science"!  They  have  been  re- 
luctant to  resign  the  honor  of  their  undisputed  occupancy  of  Moses'  seat, 
and  have  not  made  haste  in  making  plain  that  they  have  secured  this 
authoritative  sway  over  the  popular  mind  by  an  assumption  of  infallibility 
which  is  as  great  an  imposture  as  any  practiced  by  religious  priestcraft  in 
its  worst  phases ! 

Again,  Mr.  Tischner  does  not  recognize  that  the  failure  of  Copernican 
hypothesis  may  indicate  that  a  return  to  the  theory  of  a  "fixed  earth," 
on  the  Biblical-Tychonic  basis,  is  far  more  rational  than  the  unproven 
postulate  of  the  translation  of  our  solar  system  through  space,  which  he 


G2 

maintains,  with  the  modern  astronomers.  His  account  of  that  translation, 
on  the  basis  of  an  enormous  orbit,  is  that  which  the  astronomers  were  inclined 
to  give  until  recently.  Mr.  Tischner  says  > 

"  The  sun,  eternally  moving  in  the  universe,  carries  with  him  his  system, 
the  planets,  &c. ;  none  of  the  appertaining  bodies  can  remain  behind,  all 
must  follow  the  sun  with  the  same  velocity,  without  regard  to  their  circula- 
tion [orbital  revolution],  without  regard  to  their  own  movement.  While  the 
planets  are  following  the  sun,  they  make  curves  of  revolution.  The  sun 
advancing,  no  planet  can  precede  or  move  in  front  of  him  in  his  path  or 
orbit.  If  the  sun  is  moving,  there  are  no  closed  orbits  re-entering  into 
themselves,  nor  planes  of  orbits.  The  moving  sun  changes  the  orbits 
(curves  of  revolution)  of  the  planets  following  him  into  spirals  ;  the  ring 
of  the  spiral  is  therefore  the  true  curve  of  revolution  of  the  celestial  body, 
which  it  .describes  by  its  own  velocity  ;  the  curve  centrally  seen  is  a  circle  ; 
the  consecutive  rings  will  therefore  exhibit  a  series  of  revolutions  as  a 
cylindrical  spiral. 

"What  immense  space  of  time  is  required  to  determine  the  motion  of 
the  sun  and  stars  !  Already  observations  are  showing  us  these  motions  ; 
they  seem,  upon  the  whole,  to  indicate  a  general  movement  of  all  bodies 
belonging  to  the  solar  system  towards  the  constellation  of  Hercules  ;  but 
they  seem  to  demonstrate,  too,  that  the  apparent  motion  of  the  stars  is  a 
combination  of  their  own  movement  with  that  of  the  sun. 

"The  factjs  that  the  planets  do  not  revolve  round  the  sun,  but  follow 
him.  It  is  evident  that  the  revolution  is  related  to  the  sun  and  his  centre  ; 
but  in  truth  they  proceed  round  the  orbit  of  the  sun.  The  moon,  for 
example,  moves  with  the  earth  in  the  same  direction. 

"  While  the  planets  describe  their  original  curve,  they  are  drawn  forward 
by  the  sun  ;  the  consequence  of  which  is  the  inevitable  necessity  for  the 
spiral  as  the  definitive  curve  of  orbit  or  moving  line  of  double  curvature, 
which  results  from  the  combination  of  two  velocities  (forces),  one  of  which 
belongs  to  the  planets,  being  their  originally  received  velocity  which  they 
themselves  cannot  change  ;  the  other  belongs  to  the  sun.  It  is  this  move- 
ment of  the  sun  which  is  communicated  to  the  planets  by  attraction  ;  their 
own  velocity  receives  by  it  an  increment  which  may  be  called  leading  or  con- 
ducting velocity.  The  sum  of  both  movements  is  the  absolute  velocity  of 
the  planet  in  space.  What  is  understood  of  the  sun  and  planets,  may.  be  said 
likewise  of  the  planets  and  their  satellites.  It  is,  therefore,  the  original  cir- 
cular motion  of  the  planets,  modified  by  the  motion  of  the  sun,  which  may 
be  taken  to  be  the  path  of  their  orbit,  and  the  figure  of  which  we  have  con- 
sidered as  a  ring  changed  into  an  endless  spiral. 

"  The  first  consequence  of  the  movement  of  the  sun  delivers  astronomi- 
cal theory  from  a  great  burden  ;  it  no  longer  needs  centrifugal  force. 

"After  the  sun,  who  is  like  the  nucleus  of  a  comet  preceding  it.  there 
come,  ranged  one  after  another,  the  planets,  the  curves  of  revolution  of  which 


enlarge  more  and  more  according  to  their  distance,  as  if  they  represented  so 
many' centrifugal  pendula,  the  threads  of  which  proceed  from  the  centre  of 
the  sun.  If  all  these  are  in  revolution  and  the  sun  is,  for  a  moment,  con- 
sidered as  immovable,  the  threads  {radii  vectores)  form  regular  cones,  the 
base  of  which  is  perpendicular  to  their  axis.  The  circumference  of  this  base 
of  the  cone  is  what  we  have  called  the  original  curve  of  revolution.  If  these 
cones  are  situated  in  the  same  angle,  they  seem  to  make  but  a  single  one,  the 
planets  revolving  on  the  surface  of  it.  To  judge  from  observation,  it  seems 
indeed  that  the  cones  are  situated  nearly  in  the  same  angle.  .  .  .  Now, 
if  the  sun  moves,  the  direction  of  his  movement  is  the  common  axis  of  the 
cone,  that  is  to  say,  the  planets  revolve  round  the  line  described  by  the  sun, 
which  we  may  call  his  orbit  ;  this  line  is  the  very  equator  of  heaven. 

"  It  is  clear  in  itself,  that  the  sun  moves  in  a  curve.  .  .  .  According 
to  this  view,  the  cone,  the  figure  of  the  system,  will  require  a  slight  curva- 
ture and  give  an  image  which  reminds  us  of  the  figure  of  the  horn  of 
plenty."  * 

XVIII.  This  explanation  of  the  translation  of  the  solar  system  through 
space  involves  the  postulate  that  the  sun  is  carrying  his  system  through  the 
heavens  along  the  circuit  of  some  immense  orbit,  "  the  very  equator  of 
heaven,"  about  the  real  centre  of  the  physical  universe.  The  inference  is 
that  the  other  suns,  the  fixed  stars,  with  their  systems,  are  moving  in  enor- 
mous orbits  about  the  same  centre  of  the  universe.  This  dream  has  been 
nursed  by  Kant,  Swedenborg,  and  other  visionaries.  But  the  observations 
which  have  forced  astronomers,  imbued  with  Copernican  notions,  to  postu- 
late the  translation  of  our  solar  system  through  space,  now  lead  them  to 
conceive  of  this  movement  as  one  element  of  a  general  anarchy  which  pre- 
vails among  the  celestial  bodies,  whereby  the  innumerable  systems  are  flying 
from  one  another  in  straight  lines,  the  ultimate  result  being  that  our  solar 
system  will  be  left  alone,  moving  through  a  starless  sky  !  Professor  Simon 
Newcomb  has  very  recently  expressed  this  view,  as  follows: 

"  Now,  the  greatest  fact  which  modern  science  has  brought  to  light  is 
that  our  whole  solar  system,  including  the  sun,  is  on  a  journey  toward  the 
constellation  Lyra.  .  .  .  The  speed  has  recently  been  determined  with 
a- fair  degree  of  certainty,  though  not  with  entire  exactness  ;  it  is  about  ten 
miles  a  second,  and  therefore  not  far  from  three  hundred  millions  of  miles  a 
year.  .  .  . 

"  So  far  as  we  can  yet  see,  each  star  is  going  straight  ahead  on  its  own 
journey,  without  regard  to  its  neighbors,  if  other  stars  can  be  so  called.  Is 
each  describing  some  vast  orbit  which,  though  looking  like  a  straight  line 
during  the  short  period  of  our  observation,  will  really  be  seen  to  curve  after 
ten  thousand  or  a  hundred  thousand  years,  or  will  it  go  straight  on  forever  ? 
If  the  laws  of  motion  are  true  for  all  space  and  all  time,  as  we  are  forced  to 
believe,  then  each  moving  star  will  go  on  in  an  unbending  line  forever  unless 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  15-22. 


64 

hindered  by  the  attraction  of  other  stars.  If  they  go  on  thus,  they  must, 
after  countless  years,  scatter  in  all  directions,  so  that  the  inhabitants  of 
each  shall  see  only  a  black,  starless  sky.  .  .  . 

"  Mathematical  science  can  throw  only  a  few  glimmers  of  light  on  the 
questions  thus  suggested.  From  what  little  we  know  of  the  masses,  dis- 
tances and  numbers  of  the  stars,  we  see  a  possibility  that  the  more  slow-moving 
ones  may,  in  long  ages,  be  stopped  in  their  onward  courses  or  brought 
into  orbits  of  some  sort  by  the  attraction  of  their  millions  of  fellows.  But 
it  is  hard  to  admit  even  this  possibility  in  the  case  of  the  swift-moving 
ones.  Attraction,  varying  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance,  dimin- 
ishes so  rapidly  that,  at  the  distances  which  separate  the  stars,  it  is  small 
indeed.  We  could  not,  with  the  most  delicate  balance  that  science  has 
yet  invented,  even  show  the  attraction  of  the  greatest  known  star.  So 
far  as  we  know,  the  two  swiftest-moving  stars  are,  first,  Arcturus,  and 
second,  one  known  in  astronomy  as  1830  Groombridge,  the  latter  so  called 
because  it  was  first  observed  by  the  astronomer  Groombridge,  and  is  num- 
bered 1830  in  his  catalogue  of  stars.  If  our  determinations  of  the  dis- 
tances of  these  bodies  are  to  be  relied  on,  the  velocity  of  their  motion 
cannot  be  much  less  than  200  m'iles  a  second.  They  would  make  the 
circuit  of  the  earth  every  two  or  three  minutes.  A  body  massive  enough 
to  control  this  motion  would  throw  a  large  part  of  the  universe  into  dis- 
order. Thus  the  problem  where  these  stars  came  from  and  where  they 
are  going  is  for  us  insoluble,  and  is  all  the  more  so  from  the  fact  that 
they  are  moving  in  different  directions  and  seem  to  have  no  connection 
with  each  other  or  with  any  known  star."  * 

XIX.  Thus  Professor  Newcomb's  explanation  of  the  solar  system  plainly 
concedes  the  main  contention  of  Mr.  Tischner,  except  that  Professor  New- 
comb  thinks  probability  favors  a  straight  line  as  the  direction  of  the  sun's 
course,  in  place  of  the  slightly  curved  orbit  suggested  by  Mr.  Tischner. 
But  all  such  conclusions,  whatever  may  be  their  minor  differences,  involve 
weighty  corollaries  which  our  astronomers  seem  slow  to  recognize,  probably 
because  their  minds  are  wholly  pre-occupied  with  the  prejudiced  view  of 
things  engendered  by  education  in  Newtonian-Copernican  doctrine.  He 
who  cannot  free  his  mind  absolutely  from  this  bias,  will  remain  under  a 
serious  handicap  in  surveying  the  present  nebulous  condition  of  theoreti- 
cal astronomy.  And  on  this  account  it  may  very  readily  happen  that  the 
most  valuable  suggestions  toward  a  more  rational  reconstruction  of  astro- 
nomical theory  will  come  from  those  who  are  not  professional  astronomers, 
independence  of  mind  and  freedom  from  bias  more  than  compensating 
for  expert  technical  knowledge.  In  the  same  way,  the  attempted  discus- 
sion of  these  subjects  even  by  a  tyro  like  myself,  since  it  is  done  in  a 
thoroughly  skeptical  spirit,  may  serve  to  call  attention  to  the  completeness 


*  "  The  Unsolved  Problems  of  Astronomy,"  McCluris  Magazine,  July,  1899. 


65 

of  the  collapse  of  the  entire  theoretical  branch  of  astronomical  science, 
inducing  some  independent  minds  to  meditate  upon  the  subject.  Astrono- 
mers themselves  certainly  seem  as  helpless  as  they  have  often  declared 
theologians  to  be. 

It  requires  a  little  care  to  realize  the  quandary  in  which  the  modern 
astronomer  is  placed.  The  problem  before  him  is  that  of  steering  a  course 
between  Scylla  and  Charybdis.  It  seems  absurd,  on  the  one  hand,  to  • 
apply  to  the  mechanism  of  a  system,  whose  controlling  sun  is  conducting 
his  planetary  satellites  swiftly  through  space,  the  explanations  framed  for 
a  system  whose  controlling  sun  was  considered  practically  fixed  in  space, 
holding  his  satellites  in  elliptical  orbits,  one  outside  the  other,  about  him- 
self as  their  common  centre.  Every  one  knows  that  the  laws  of  Kepler 
and  the  hypothesis- of  Newton,  with  the  mathematical  solutions  developed 
by  Newton,  Lagrange,  Laplace,  Adams  and  Leverrier,  are  all  in  explana- 
tion of  the  mechanism  which  would  result  from  a  fixed  sun,  holding  in 
equilibrium  about  himself  planets  moving  in  elliptical  orbits  which  practi- 
cally re-enter  themselves  with  every  revolution  of  the  respective  planets. 
To  pretend  that  we  would  expect  this  result  were  the  sun  speeding  through 
space  with  a  velocity  ranging  from  three  to  eighteen  miles  per  second,  is 
the  Scylla  which  every  astronomer  must  necessarily  avoid.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  the  laws  of  Kepler  are  quite  false,  representing  appearances  but 
not  facts,  and  if  Newton's  law  is  out  of  the  question  as  applicable  to  the 
actual  mechanism  of  the  solar  system,  how  comes  it  that  coincidence  be- 
tween theory  and  observation  has  been  so  closely  approximated  on  this 
basis,  while  the  current  formulas  have  served  as  a  basis  for  prediction  which 
is  approximately  correct,  so  far  as  our  present  means  of  observation  permit 
us  to  judge?  Granting  that  the  postulate  of  gravitation  is  untenable,  and 
that  Newton's  law  is  empirical,  having  been  formed  by  a  guess  based  on 
observations,  yet  if  the  solar  system  be  not  controlled  by  some  force  which 
maintains  order  and  equilibrium,  and  if  Newton's  law  does  not  very 
closely  approximate  the  mathematical  expression  of  the  operations  of  this 
force,  how  comes  it  that  observations  of  Uranus,  compared  with  this  law, 
indicated  the  existence  of  another  planet,  and  that  this  disturbance  of 
Uranus,  accounted  for  on  the  basis  of  Newton's  law,  enabled  Adams  and 
Leverrier  to  tell  astronomers  about  where  to  turn  their  telescopes  in  order  to 
find  the  planet  Neptune?  Of  course  this  famous  case  of  prediction  did  not 
establish  the  postulate  of  gravitation,  as  even  some  astronomers  have  care- 
lessly asserted  ;  nor  yet  demonstrate  that  Newton's  law  is  the  exact  mathe- 
matical expression  of  the  great  force  of  nature  operating  the  celestial 
mechanism.  But  can  the  empiricism  which  yields  such  a  result  be  out  of  all 
proportion  to  the  actual  facts  of  nature?  This  is  the  Charybdis  which 
threatens  with  shipwreck  any  astronomer  who  despises  the  empirical  conclu- 
sions based  on  the  hypothesis  of  a  fixed  sun  !  If  it  can  be  shown  that  the 
Biblical-Tychonic  system  apparently  reconciles  all  the  factors  in  this  strange 


problem,  will  it  not  be  admitted  that  this  fact  alone  entitles  that  system  to 
serious  consideration,  despite  its  seeming  absurdity  to  the  Copernican  pre- 
possession which  is  so  accustomed  to  soar  into  infinity,  and  despite  the 
fact  that  consideration  of  this  system  might  tend  to  restore  that  confidence 
in  the  Bible  which  astronomers  as  a  class  have  labored  so  zealously  to 
destroy?  That  the  Biblical-Tychonic  system  would  render  a  rational  ex- 
•  planation  in  the  premises,  I  will  undertake  to  show  in  a  moment.  Here 
we  may  briefly  state  the  problem. 

Observations  which  have  been  carefully  registered  for  many  years  shpw 
that  the  fixed  stars,  so-called,  seem  gradually  moving  apart  in  one  part  of 
the  heavens,  while  in  the  opposite  part  they  seem  gradually  to  be  coming 
together.  On  the  Copernican  postulate,  this  would  certainly  seem  to  indi- 
cate a  swift  movement  of  our  solar  system  toward  the  part  of  the  heavens 
where  the  stars  appear  to  be  moving  apart.  Some  assert  that  this  trans- 
lation through  space  is  directly  towards  the  constellation  of  Hercules, 
others  that  it  is  toward  the  constellation  of  Lyra.  Professor  Vogel  has 
variously  estimated  the  velocity  of  this  motion  as  between  three  and  ten 
miles  per  second.  Professor  Newcomb,  as  we  have  seen,  estimates  it  at 
ten  miles  per  second.  Weighing  different  opinions,  Mr.  Fison  thinks  it  is 
"  probably  between  twelve  and  eighteen  miles  per  second."  * 

The  orbital  velocity  assigned  to  the  earth  during  her  annual  revolution 
about  the  sun,  on  the  Newtonian-Copernican  hypothesis  of  a  fixed  sun,  is 
about  nineteen  miles  per  second  ;  while  in  addition  to  this  motion,  and  to 
her  daily  rotation,  we  are  now  to  credit  her  with  a  forward  velocity  through 
space  which  is  one-half  her  orbital  velocity,  or  more.  In  the  case  of  the 
Moon,  this  translation  through  space  is  to  be  taken  into  account,  together 
with  the  Moon's  velocity  in  her  own  orbit  about  the  earth,  and  her  much 
greater  velocity  in  moving  with  the  earth  in  the  orbital  revolution  about  the 
sun.  Now  if  the  planets  are  controlled  by  the  attraction  of  the  sun,  as 
astronomers  suppose,  and  the  translation  through  space  be  a  fact,  it  seems 
irrational  to  conceive  of  the  solar  system  on  any  other  basis  than  the 
conical-spiral  formation  suggested  by  Mr.  Tischner.  Yet  to  conceive  of  it 
on  this  basis  involves,  (i)  the  complete  collapse  of  nearly  all  the  current 
estimates  of  astronomy,  and  (2)  the  contradiction  of  observations. 

The  sun  has  been  estimated  to  be  about  853,000  miles  in  diameter,  while 
its  mean  distance  from  the  earth  is  about  93,000,000  miles.  These  esti- 
mates are  based  upon  observations  of  the  opposition  of  Mars  and  of  the 
transit  of  Venus.  The  method  employed  in  the  case  of  Mars  is  not  de- 
cisive for  one  who  questions  the  truth  of  the  Copernican  hypothesis  and 
doubts  the  reality  of  the  earth's  alleged  diurnal  rotation  ;  while  astronomers 
concede  that  observations  of  the  transit  of  Venus  have  so  far  yielded  no 
reliable  result.  But  granting  that  the  distance  between  the  sun  and  the 


"  Recent  Advances  in  Astronomy,"  by  Alfred  H.  Fison.    London,  1898,  p.  47. 


67 

earth  is  known  to  be  about  93,000,000  miles,  what  is  involved  in  the  conical- 
spiral  conception  of  the  solar  system  ?  The  present  estimate  of  the  earth's 
orbit  of  revolution  becomes  worthless  !  This  estimate  is  very  simply  ob- 
tained by  doubling  the  distance  between  earth  and  sun,  which  gives  186,- 
000,000  miles  as  the  mean  diameter  of  the  earth's  orbit.  But  the  moment 
we  consider  the  conical-spiral  formation,  we  at  once  see  that  the  distance 
between  earth  and  sun  is  not  the  radius  of  a  closed  orbit  about  a  fixed  sun, 
but  the  slant  height  of  a  cone,  the  base  of  which  may  be  conveniently — but 
not  accurately — considered  as  circumscribed  by  the  orbit  of  the  earth.  (In 
truth,  the  orbit  would  be  an  endless  spiral;  but  the  diameter  of  the  base  of 
the  cone  would  give  the  diameter  of  the  spiral  thus  formed,  and  suffices  for 
illustration.)  On  this  supposition,  it  is  absolutely  useless  to  speculate  as  to' 
the  orbit  of  the  earth,  unless  astronomers  can  find  some  means  of  determin- 
ing the  altitude  of  the  cone  thus  described.  To  make  the  conception  more 
simple,  let  us  consider  the  cone  as  cut  in  two,  from  apex  to  base,  and  deal 
•with  the  plane  surface  thus  exposed  to  view.  We  thus  have  an  isosceles 
triangle,  the  sun  being  at  its  apex,  its  two  equal  sides  being  each  measured 
by  the  distance  between  the  sun  and  the  earth,  while  its  base  would  be  the 
diameter  of  the  spiral  described  by  the  earth's  orbit.  The  natural  idea  of 
the  effect  of  the  sun's  swift  sweep  through  space  with  his  planets  trailing 
behind,  reinforced  perhaps  by  the  appearance  of  the  tails  of  comets  and 
meteorites,  would  lead  us  to  conceive  of  the  base  of  our  triangle,  represent- 
ing the  approximate  diameter  of  the  earth's  orbit,  as  much  shorter  than 
the  equal  sides,  representing  the  distance  between  the  sun  and  the  earth. 
Instead  of  estimating  the  radius  of  the  earth's  orbit  at  93,000,000  rniles, 
we  would  consider  that  too  much  even  for  the  diameter  of  the  earth's 
orbit  !  And  down  would  go  all  the  estimates  hanging  upon  the  present 
postulate  of  aberration  of  light  and  the  supposed  velocity  of  light,  meas- 
ured on  the  assumption  that  the  mean  diameter  of  the  earth's  orbit  is 
about  186,000,000  miles!  Down  would  fall  all  the  estimates  based  upon 
planetary  parallax  and  stellar  parallax — all  our  conception  of  sizes,  dis- 
tances and  velocities,  as  applied  to  the  so-called  fixed  stars,  dwindling 
materially  !  We  could  no  longer  estimate  the  various  planetary  relations  as 
if  all  the  planetary  orbits  lay  in  practically  the  same  plane,  one  outside  the 
other,  but  must  estimate  all  the  relations  on  the  conical-spiral  hypothesis, 
the  distance  between  the  sun  and  each  planet  being  the  slant  height  of  a 
cone  the  diameter  of  whose  base  would  be  the  approximate  diameter  of 
the  planetary  orbit,  instead  of  the  distance  between  the  sun  and  planet  giving 
the  mere  radius  of  an  elliptical  orbit  ! 

But  on  the  other  hand,  what  astronomer  dares  allow  this  natural  and 
rational  effect  of  the  sun's  conveyance  swiftly  through  space  of  a  band  of 
satellites?  At  the  first  glance,  the  conical-spiral  postulate  appears  to  fall 
into  the  same  condemnation  as  Ptolemy's  hypothesis,  as  hopelessly  contra- 
dicting our  observations  of  Venus  and  Mercury.  On  the  postulate  he  pre- 


sents,  how  would   Mr.    Tischner   explain  the   eclipse  of  these  planets  by 
the  sun  ? 

If  astronomers  retain  their  Copernican  ideas,  and  seek  to  adjust  a  modi- 
fication of  the  Copernican  hypothesis  to  the  postulate  of  solar  translation 
through  space,  I  can  conceive  of  but  one  formation  which  could  be 
thought  less  irrational  than  that  taught  in  the  books,  while  equally  repre- 
senting the  observed  phenomena  and  accounting  for  the  approximate  success 
of  prediction  on  the  basis  of  Kepler's  laws  and  Newton's  formula.  We 
must  consider  all  the  planets  as  moving  about  the  sun  in  what  would  be  ellip- 
tical orbits,  one  outside  the  other,  in  nearly  one  plane  as  in  present  theory 
were  there  no  translation  through  space,  and  all  moving  through  space  with- 
out trailing  behind  the  sun,  forming  spiral  orbits  with  one  diameter  per- 
pendicular to  the  line  of  the  sun's  path  through  space.  With  this  conception, 
we  would  no  longer  speak  of  the  planets  as  moving  sometimes  above  and 
sometimes  below  the  plane  of  the  ecliptic,  but  as  moving  sometimes  before 
and  sometimes  behind  it.  Were  space  a  vacuum,  on  the  basis  of  Galileo's 
laws  of  motion  we  might  perhaps  conceive  of  such  a  solar-planetary  vortex, 
projecting  itself  through  space  and  revolving  about  the  centre  of  its  path 
as  the  axis  of  the  system.  But  the  postulate  of  a  resisting  medium,  now 
entertained  by  scientists,  would  seem  to  render  this  conception  as  absurd  as 
that  of  the  sun  sweeping  through  space  accompanied  by  satellites  moving 
about  him  in  orbits  in  the  plane  of  his  path,  and  thus  passing  in  front  of 
him.  Even  on  the  basis  of  a  fixed  sun  it  has  been  considered  probable  that 
a  resisting  medium  in  space  is  gradually  diminishing  the  velocity  of  the 
planets,  so  that  they  yield  more  and  more  to  the  attracting  force  of  the  sun, 
are  slowly  approaching  him  in  gradually-narrowing  orbits,  and  must  eventu- 
ally fall  into  the  sun.  But  with  modifications  of  the  Copernican  hypothesis 
to  meet  the  postulate  of  translation  through  space, — whether  we  consider  the 
plane  of  the  ecliptic  to  lie  in  the  plane  of  the  path  of  the  system  through 
space,  or  adopt  the  other  alternative, — we  must  postulate  an  additional  action 
of  the  resisting  medium  upon  the  planets,  tending  to  make  them  trail  behind 
the  sun,  as  the  comet's  tail  trails  behind  the  nucleus.  Observation,  however, 
shows  the  contrary  of  this  —  the  planets  sometimes  preceding  the  sun; 
revealing  no  effect  of  a  resisting  medium,  providing  there  is  translation 
through  space. 

In  addition  to  the  five  points  under  this  head  already  made,  I  add  a  few 
other  arguments  in  favor  of  the  Biblical-Tychonic  theory, 

VI.  The  Biblical-Tychonic  theory  avoids  all  the  difficulties  attendant  upon 
a  postulate  of  the  translation  of  the  solar  system  through  space.  According  to 
this  hypothesis,  the  celestial  sphere  is  a  related  whole,  as  it  phenomenally 
appears  to  be,  with  a  daily  rotation  about  the  earth  ;  hence  the  appearance 
of  stars  drawing  apart  in  one  section  of  the  heavens  and  drawing  together  in 


the  opposite  section  is  to  be  referred  wholly  to  a  very  slight  movement  of 
the  star-relations,  and  neither  indicates  a  translation  of  the  solar  system 
through  space,  nor  a  general  condition  of  celestial  anarchy.* 

VII.  While  the  inconceivable  distances  required  by  the  Copernican  pos- 
tulate, projected  by  the  imagination  to  help  out  the  hypothesis,  were  deemed 
the  best  of  reasons  for  rejecting  a  conception  making  demands  so  lavish  upon 
pure  fancy,  by  men  of  intellect  like  Tycho  Brahe,  Sir  Francis  Bacon,  Shake- 
speare and  Milton,  together  with  the  concensus  of  popular  opinion  in  their 
day,  in  the  present  day  the  educational  bias  is  so  different  that  the  true  sys- 
tem of  the  physical  universe  (whatever  it  may  be)  would  inevitably  appear 
grotesque,  if  it  failed  to  appeal  to  the  imagination  on  some  immense 
scale.  What  are  the  elements  which  describe  the  most  rational  astronomical 
hypothesis,  per  se?  Let  us  suppose  that  the  jury  to  whom  we  put  this  ques- 
tion embraces  both  the  generation  of  Bacon's  day  and  that  of  the  present  day, 
while  we  have  induced  the  one  to  carefully  guard  against  the  influence  .of 
prejudices  engendered  by  educational  bias  favoring  Ptolemaic  theory,  and 
have  induced  the  other  to  guard  against  prejudices  engendered  by  educational 
bias  favoring  the  Copernican  theory.  What  would  be  the  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion ?  Perhaps  something  like  the  following  :  The  most  rational  astronomical 
hypothesis,  per  se,  is  that  which  embraces  the  observed  relations  the  most 
comprehensively  and  explains  them  most  simply,  on  the  basis  of  the  me- 
chanics of  nature  known  to  us  on  the  earth,  requiring  the  least  amount  of 
inventions  unsuggested  by  the  observed  phenomena  and  contrived  to  meet 
the  exigencies  of  theory,  and  making  the  least  demand  upon  us  to  credit  the 
marvellous.  Let  us  compare  the  Copernican  and  Biblical-Tychonic  hypo- 
theses by  this  rule. 

If  the  postulate  of  universal  attraction  be  true,  then  we  must  concede 
that  the  Copernican  hypothesis,  with  one  great  centre  of  attraction,  is  even 
more  simple  than  th.e  Biblical-Tychonic  hypothesis,  with  two  great  centres 
of  attraction. 

If  we  call  in  question  the  postulate  of  universal  attraction,  the  advan- 
tage is  with  the  other  side.  And  to  believe  in  gravitation,  we  must  postu- 
late the  mysterious,  the  marvellous,  the  absurd — an  anomaly  in  nature ; 


*  We  must  not  forget  that  the  displacements  among  the  fixed  stars  are  scarcely  discern- 
able  after  centuries  of  observation.  It  is  only  the  Copernican  conception  of  vast  distances 
which  compels  us  to  interpret  these  exceedingly  minute  displacements  as  evidences  of  swift 
translations  through  space.  Thus  in  the  article  from  which  we  cited,  and  when  speaking 
of  the  two  stars  whose  velocities  appear  to  be  the  greatest,  Prof.  Newcomb  says :  "  It  must 
not  be  supposed  that  these  enormous  velocities  seem  so  to  us.  Not  one  of  them,  even  the 
greatest,  would  be  visible  to  the  naked  eye  until  after  years  of  watching  ...  To  the 
oldest  Assyrian  priests  Lyra  looked  much  as  it  does  to  us  to-day.  Among  the  bright  and 
well-known  stars  Arcturus  has  the  most  rapid  apparent  motion,  yet  Job  himself  would  not 
to-day  see  that  its  position  had  changed,  unless  he  had  noted  it  with  more  exactness  than 
any  astronomer  of  his  time."  On  the  Biblical-Tychonic  basis,  these  displacements  may  be 
themselves  trivial,  and  their  significance  equally  so. 


70 

while,  on  the  other  hand,  we  no  longer  recognize  the  device  of  two  attracting 
centres  where  one  would  do,  but  perceive  the  arrangement  for  a  huge  celestial 
electro-dynamic  machine,  which  produces  the  related  phenomena  of  heat, 
light,  chemical  energy,  electricity  and  magnetism. 

In  ability  to  account  for  the  essential  observed  phenomena,  each  hypo- 
thesis is  the  peer  of  the  other.  If  we  accept  terrestrial  gravitation  as  a  sample 
of  universal  attraction,  we  must  also  concede  that  both  hypotheses  are  on 
an  equality  in  ability  to  explain  the  observed  relations  "on  the  basis  of  the 
mechanics  of  nature  known  to  us  on  the  earth." 

The  Biblical-Tychonic  theory,  explained  on  the  electro-magnetic  basis, 
has  a  remarkable  advantage  over  the  other  in  point  of  simplicity  and  ability 
to  explain  more  of  the  phenomena  of  the  solar  system  ;  for  while  gravita- 
tion accounts  for  the  relations  between  the  members  of  the  solar  system, 
and  for  the  phenomena  of  falling  bodies,  electro -magnetism  not  only 
accounts  for  both  these  things,  but  enables  us  to  recognize  that  the  same 
force  which  holds  the  orbs  together  supplies  light,  heat,  actinic  energy  and 
electrical  energy  throughout  the  system. 

The  hypotheses  are  on  a  par  in  extending  to  the  entire  physical  universe 
the  operation  of  the  respective  forces  assigned  to  control  the  solar  system  ; 
but  the  Biblical-Tychonic  theory  here  retains  its  advantage,  by  being  also 
able  to  extend  to  the  entire  physical  universe  its  ability  to  explain  the 
most  phenomena  by  the  postulate  of  a  single  force. 

The  Biblical-Tychonic  theory  has  a  great  advantage  in  simplicity  and 
credibility  in  virtue  of  explaining  the  entire  physical  universe  as  one  closely- 
related  and  orderly  system  ;  whereas  the  Copernican  hypothesis  represents 
the  solar  system  as  isolated,  in  independence  of  the  rest  of  the  phyical  uni- 
verse, with  the  suggestion  of  many  other  independent  systems. 

The  Copernican  hypothesis  requires  the  pure  assumption  that  the  so- 
called  fixed  stars  are  great  suns,  launched  in  space,  at  an  almost  incon- 
ceivable distance  from  us.  This  supposition,  as  is  well  known,  is  wholly 
gratuitous ;  was  not  suggested  by  observations ;  but  is  simply  a  marvellous 
invention  of  the  imagination,  compelled  by  the  exigencies  of  the  hypothesis. 
The  fact  that  the  necessity  of  making  this  assumption  was  long  the  most 
serious  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  acceptance  of  the  Copernican  hypothesis, 
shows  how  contrary  the  assumption  is  to  the  natural  inference  from  observa- 
tions. The  Biblical-Tychonic  theory  does  not  tax  credulity  and  pure  im- 
agination with  any  such  invention,  leaving  the  question  of  distances  here  to 
be  independently  determined  by  scientific  investigation. 

Finally,  the  Copernican  hypothesis  is  now  laden  with  the  marvellous  pos- 
tulate that  immense  systems,  at  inconceivable  distances,  are  rushing  through 
unthinkable  spaces,  with  incredible  velocity,  and  without  apparent  law  or 
order  !  The  Biblical-Tychonic  theory  makes  no  such  demand  upon  human 
"  faith"  and  imagination  ! 

Hence  if  the  Copernican  hypothesis  is  the  more  rational,  then  Hume's 


71 

philosophy  breaks  down,  and  instead  of  requiring  faith  to  believe  in  mira- 
cles, the  miracles  in  the  Bible  are  the  very  thing  which  ought  to  recommend 
it  to  the  human  reason — just  as  the  miracles  and  marvels  of  Copernican 
hypothesis  are  marks  of  superiority  over  a  system  which  requires  us  to  pos- 
tulate nothing  concerning  which  we  have  no  evidence  !  How  logical  and 
consistent  are  the  mental  processes  of  materialistic  scientists ! 

Is  it  any  thing  but  educational  bias  which  could  think  it  a  point  against 
the  credibility  of  a  system,  instead  of  a  point  in  its  favor,  that  it  should  con- 
ceive of  the  physical  universe,  however  vast,  as  yet  finite  ?  If  so,  even  the 
Copernican  system  is  now  likely  to  come  under  this  reproach,  as  witness  these 
words  of  Professor  Simon  Newcomb  : 

"Another  unsolved  problem  among  the  greatest  which  present  themselves 
to  the  astronomer  is  that  of  the  size  of  the  universe  of  stars.  In  other  words, 
has  the  universe  a  boundary?  .  .  .  It  is  a  great  encouragement  to  the 
astronomer  that,  although  he  cannot  yet  set  any  exact  boundary  to  this  uni- 
verse of  ours,  he  is  gathering  faint  indications  that  it  has  a  boundary,  which 
his  successors  not  many  generations  hence  may  locate  so  that  th'e  astonomer 
shall  include  creation  itself  within  his  mental  grasp.  It  can  be  shown  mathe- 
matically that  an  infinitely  extended  system  of  stars  would  fill  the  heavens 
with  a  blaze  of  light  like  that  of  the  noonday  sun.  As  no  such  effect  is  pro- 
duced, it  may  be  concluded  that  the  universe  has  a  boundary."  * 

Evidently  this  last  is  Professor  Newcomb's  deduction  from  the  problem  of 
Professor  Seeliger,  referred  to  above.  But  granting  that  the  universe  is  finite, 
the  darkness  of  the  interstellar  spaces  remains  one  of  the  best  of  reasons 
for  doubting  that  the  stars  are  suns,  and  for  believing  that  they  are  smaller 
bodies  raised  to  incandescence  by  the  electrical  wave-pulses  from  our  sun. 

VIII.  The  Biblical-Tychonic  theory  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that, 
spite  of  the  current  hypothesis,  observations  certainly  show  our  earth  to  be 
situated  apparently  at  the  centre  of  the  physical  universe.  Before  intro- 
ducing testimony  to  this  effect,  let  us  note  the  following,  as  an  example 
of  the  arguments  against  the  probability  that  God  would  really  reveal  Him- 
self to  the  earth,  as  Scripture  teaches,  which  are  frequently  founded  upon 
the  assumption  of  the  infallibility  of  Copernican  theory  : 

"  Before  the  powerful  mind  of  Copernicus  ventured  to  question  it,  our 
earth  was  held  to  be  the  centre  of  the  universe,  and  about  it  all  the  rest 
of  the  heavenly  bodies  revolved.  There  was  but  one  'world,'  and  that 
was  our  earth;,  the  whole  firmament,  infinitely,  was  the  fitting  frame  to 
the  picture,  upon  which  man,  as  the  most  perfect  being,  held  a  position 
which  was  truly  sublime.  ...  It  was  an  elevating  thought  that  you 
were  on  the  centre,  the  only  fixed  point  amidst  countless  revolving  orbs  ! 
The  narrations  in  the  Bible,  and  the  character  of  the  Christian  religion  as 
a  whole,  fitted  this  conception  exceedingly  well ;  or,  more  properly  speak- 


McCluris  Magazine,  July,  1899. 


72 

ing,  were  made  to  fit  it.  The  creation  of  man,  his  fall,  the  flood,  and  our 
second  venerable  ancestor,  Noah,  with  his  ark  in  which  the  continuation  of 
races  was  provided  for,  the  foundation  of  the  Christian  religion,  the  work 
of  redemption  ;  all  this  could  only  lay  claim  to  universal  importance  so  long 
as  the  earth  was  the  centre  of  the  universe,  the  only  world.  Then  all  at 
once  a  learned  man  makes  the  annihilating  assertion  that  our  world  was  not 
the  centre  of  the  universe."  * 

Even  the  Christian  who  concedes  the  Copernican  conception  as  the  true 
one,  may  justly  reply  to  such  an  argument,  as  has  been  done  : 

"  C'.od  has  been  pleased  to  connect  Himself  in  a  special  way  with  man  in 
all  these  things;  marvellous  privilege  of  His  feeble  creature !  Philosophy — 
senseless,  narrow-minded,  and  even  essentially  stupid  in  its  arguments — would 
have  it  that  the  world  is  too  small  for  God  thus  to  expend  Himself  on  an 
impotent  being  like  man,  on  that  which  is  but  a  mere  point  in  an  immense 
universe.  Contemptible  folly  !  As  if  the  material  extent  of  the  theatre 
were  the  measure  of  the  moral  manifestations  wrought  upon  it,  and  of  the 
war  of  principles  which  is  there  brought  to  an  issue.  That  which  takes 
place  in  this  world  is  the  spectacle  that  unfolds  to  all  the  intelligences  of 
the  Universe  the  ways,  and  the  character,  and  the  will  of  God."  f 

Yet,  whatever  may  be  the  scale  of  sizes  and  distances  in  the  physical 
universe,  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation,  as  creation 
was  finally  prepared  for  the  advent  of  man,  represents  sun,  moon  and  stars  as 
placed  in  the  firmament  with  special  reference  to  the  earth,  as  witnesses 
of  God's  glory  and  goodness  to  man.  And  spite  of  the  fertile  imagination 
of  modern  star-gazers,  the  stubborn  fact  remains  that  our  insignificant  earth 
appears  to  be  the  centre  even  of  the  vast  infinity  of  starry  space  which  Coper- 
nican theorists  postulate.  Here  again  I  cite  Professor  Newcomb's  recent 
article : 

"  The  number  of  new  stars  brought  out  with  our  greatest  power,  is  vastly 
greater  in  the  Milky  Way  than  in  the  rest  of  the  sky.  .  .  .  What  is 
yet  more  curious,  spectroscopic  research  has  shown  that  a  particular  kind  of 
stars,  those  formed  of  heated  gas,  are  yet  more  condensed  in  the  central 
circle  of  this  band  ;  if  they  were  visible  to  the  naked  eye,  we  should  see 
them  encircling  the  heavens  as  a  narrow  girdle,  forming  perhaps  the  base  of 
our  whole  system  of  stars.  ...  A  most  curious  fact  is  that  our  solar 
system  seems  to  be  in  the  centre  of  this  galactic  universe,  because  the  Milky 
Way  divides  the  heavens  into  two  equal  parts,  and  seems  equally  broad  at 
all  points."  \ 

IX.  Geology  suggests  what  may  be  a  powerful  argument  in  favor  of  the 


*  "  Galileo  Galilei  and  the  Roman  Curia,"  by  Karl  von  Gebler  (Eng.  trans.)  London, 
1879,  p.  14. 

t  "  Synopsis  of  the  Books  of  the  Bible,"  by  J.  N.  Darby  (new  edition).  New  York  : 
Loizeaux  Bros.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  15. 

%  McClurSs  Magazine,  July,  1899. 


73 

Biblical-Tychonic  theory,  in  predicating  extensive  glacial  phenomena  on  the 
earth's  surface  at  a  recent  geological  period.  The  nebular  hypothesis  of 
astronomy  supposes  that  all  matter  in  the  solar  system  was  once  a  lumin- 
ous cloud,  rotating  about  its  centre  of  gravity,  toward  which  there  was  a 
slow  condensation  of  the  mass.  In  this  process,  successive  rings  were 
thrown  off,  which  concentrated  into  globes,  forming  the  planets  and  their 
satellites,  these  masses  becoming  solidified  as  they  cooled.  But  this  hypo- 
thesis necessitates  the  postulate  that  the  heat  of  the  sun  was  much  more 
intense  formerly  than  now,  that  it  is  gradually  diminishing,  and  that  the 
great  solar  furnace  which  heats  and  lights  our  planetary  system  will  event- 
ually become  extinct.  Yet  in  the  recent  article  from  which  we  have  several 
times  quoted,  Professor  Newcomb  declares:  "  What  we  can  say  with  con- 
fidence is  that  observations  of  temperature  in  various  countries  for  the  last 
two  or  three  hundred  years  do  not  show  any  change  in  climate  which  can  be 
attributed  to  a  variation  in  the  amount  of.heat  received  from  the  sun." 

Thus  tlie  current  astronomical  conception  requires  the  supposition  that 
there  has  been  a  gradual  diminution  of  light  and  heat  throughout  the  solar 
system,  from  the  nebulous  period  to  the  present  time  ;  whereas  observa- 
tions during  the  time  that  man  has  recorded  them  give  no  countenance 
to  the  theory.  On  the  other  hand,  geological  science  requires  another 
hypothesis  :  (i)  The  prolific  animal  and  vegetable  life  during  the  early 
geological  ages  would  seem  to  indicate  a  solar  energy  in  the  primeval 
ages  greater  than  that  displayed  within  the  memory  of  man  ;  (2)  the  ter- 
mination of  the  early  prolific  period  by  catastrophe  is  apparently  indicated, 
involving  the  submergence  of  the  earth  beneath  waterand  ice  ;  (3)  from  these 
conditions  the  earth  emerged  practically  as  since  known  to  man.  Therefore 
the  Biblical-Tychonic  theory  has  the  great  advantage  over  the  nebular  theory 
of  exact  agreement  with  the  testimony  of  the  geological  formations. 

According  to  this  theory,  the  original  creation  of  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,  mentioned  in  Gen.  i.  I,  gives  the  origin  of  the  earliest  geological  age. 
Whether  the  long  pre-glacial  ages  which  followed  were  intended  by  God  as 
a  series  of  object-lessons  for  angelic  intelligences,  we  cannot  say.  In  Gen. 
i.  2  we  have  the  recognition  of  the  cataclysmic  condition  which  followed 
these  periods.  All  forms  of  life  had  become  extinct,  since  the  earth  had 
become  "waste  and  empty."  That  the  earth  was  submerged,  is  shown  by 
the  reference  to  "  the  face  of  the  deep"  in  this  verse,  and  to  the  fact  that 
verse  9  records  that  the  dry  land  of  earth  was  subsequently  made  to  emerge 
from  the  waters.  That  the  catastrophe  had  also  deranged  the  great  electro- 
magnetic engine  of  the  celestial  vault,  is  indicated  by  the  statement  in  verse 
2  that  "darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep,"  by  the  fact  that  light  had 
subsequently  to  be  invoked  by  God's  fiat,  as  recorded  in  verse  3,  and  by  the 
fact  that  God's  fiat  re-established  sun,  moon  and  stars  as  light-bearers  (Gen. 
i.  14-18).  Since  the  withdrawal  of  light  from  the  solar  system  during  this 
catastrophe  involved  the  withdrawal  of  heat,  the  glacial  phenomena  are 


74 

rationally  explained.  Following  this  catastrophe,  we  have  the  six  days'  work 
mentioned  in  Gen.  i.  3-31,  by  means  of  which  the  physical  universe  was  re- 
constructed substantially  as  it  has  since  appeared  to  man. 

X.  As  a  final  argument  under  this  head  I  submit  another  citation  from 
Professor  Newcomb's  article,  to  show  that  the  electro-magnetic  theory  of 
solar  energy  agrees  well  with  observations,  so  far  as  our  present  methods 
enable  astronomers  to  judge.  Speaking  of  the  sun,  Professor  Newcomb 
says  : 

"  There  are  several  mysteries  which  ingenious  men  have  tried  to  explain, 
but  they  cannot  prove  their  explanations  to  be  correct.  One  is  the  cause 
and  nature  of  the  spots.  Another  is  that  the  shining  surface  of  the  sun, 
the  'photosphere,'  as  it  is  technically  called,  seems  so  calm  and  quiet  while 
forces  are  acting  within  it  of  a  magnitude  quite  ^beyond  our  conception. 
Flames  in  which  our  earth  and  everything  on  it  would  be  engulfed  like  a 
boy's  marble  in  a  blacksmith's  forge  are  continually  shooting  up  to  a  height 
of  tens  of  thousands  of  miles.  One  would  suppose  that  internal  forces 
capable  of  doing  this  would  break  the  surface  up  into  billows  of  fire  a  thousand 
miles  high  ;  but  we  see  nothing  of  the  kind.  The  surface  of  the  sun  seems 
almost  as  placid  as  a  lake.  Yet  another  mystery  is  the  corona  of  the  sun. 
This  is  something  we  should  never  have  known  to  exist  if  the  sun  were 
not  sometimes  totally  eclipsed  by  the  dark  body  of  the  moon.  On  these 
rare  occasions  the  sun  is  seen  to  be  surrounded  by  a  halo  of  soft  white 
light,  sending  out  rays  in  various  directions  to  great  distances.  This  halo 
is  called  the  corona,  and  has  been  most  industriously  studied  and  photo- 
graphed during  nearly  every  total  eclipse  for  thirty  years.  ...  It  has 
a  fibrous,  woolly  structure,  a  little  like  the  loose  end  of  a  much  worn 
hempen  rope.  A  certain  resemblance  has  been  seen  between  the  form  of 
these  seeming  fibres  and  that  of  the  lines  in  which  iron  filings  arrange 
themselves  when  sprinkled  on  paper  over  a  magnet.  It  has  hence  been 
inferred  that  the  sun  has  magnetic  properties,  a  conclusion  which,  in  a  gene- 
ral way,  is  supported  by  many  other  facts." 


I  may  add  that  my  interest  in  this  subject  is  not  at  all  that  of  one  who 
has  a  pet  astronomical  hypothesis  to  promote,  but  of  one  who  prefers  the 
Bible  to  the  dictum  of  peccable  scientists  on  any  and  every  subject  to  which 
Scripture  refers,  and  where  it  can  be  shown  that  the  current  scientific 
orthodoxy  impeaches  the  Bible,  if  its  conclusions  be  allowed.  I  am  as  sceptical 
respecting  the  inerrancy  of  scientific  dogma,  wherever  it  conflicts  with  Scrip- 
ture, as  any  scientist  can  well  be  respecting  Scriptural  dogma.  To  show  how 
justifiable  my  position  is,  I  have  attacked,  with  a  few  poorly-digested  points, 
not  the  weakest  point  in  current  scientific  theory,  but  the  hypothesis  consid- 
ered impregnable.  It  is  the  notorious  fact  that  astronomical  theory,  with  its 
claim  of  infallibility  on  the  basis  of  alleged  mathematical  demonstration,  has 


75 

been  the  great  weapon  wherewith  the  scientist,  during  the  last  two  centuries, 
has  ousted  theology  from  Moses'  seat,  usurping  the  reins  of  authority  over 
the  human  mind.  So  complete  has  been  the  surrender  to  the  scientific  priest- 
hood and  hierarchy,  that  Protestants  (from  whom,  at  least,  we  might  have  ex- 
pected better  things)  have  characteristically  abandoned  confidence  in  Scrip- 
ture, as  a  divinely  inspired  and  infallible  revelation,  to  take  up  with  abject 
confidence  in  scientific  pretension,  so  that  with  many,  even  among  those  who 
still  cling  to  a  profession  of  Christianity,  the  Scriptures  are  no  longer  credi- 
ble in  so  far  as  they  venture  to  conflict  with  even  the  most  ephemeral  scien- 
tific assertion  in  any  quarter  !  Yet  I  have  not  a  doubt  that  the  Christian  who 
takes  Scripture  as  an  infallible  guide  (studying  it  carefully  and  prayerfully, 
and  seeking  to  avoid  the  mistake  of  rejecting  scientific  postulates  hastily, 
where  the  seeming  contradiction  is  not  real),  will  find  his  Bible  to  be  the  true 
"royal  road  to  learning"  in  all  branches  of  science,  enabling  him  to  take 
forth  the  precious  from  the  vile,  and  to  detect  irrational  hypotheses  and  un- 
natural deductions.  The  necessity  for  some  such  touchstone,  in  testing  the 
immense  mass  of  ore  thrown  up  by  modern  scientists,  is  indicated  by  the 
following  remarks  of  Dr.  Karl  Pearson  : 

"  It  might  be  supposed  that  science  has  made  such  strides  in  the  last  two 
centuries,  and  notably  in  the  last  fifty  years,  that  we  might  look  forward  to 
a  day  when  its  work  would  be  practically  accomplished.  At  the  beginning 
of  this  century  it  was  possible  for  an  Alexander  von  Humboldt  to  take  a 
survey  in  the  entire  domain  of  then  extant  science.  Such  a  survey  would  be 
impossible  for  any  scientist  now,  even  if  gifted  with  more  than  Humboldt's 
powers.  Scarcely  any  specialist  of  to-day  is  really  master  of  all  the  work 
which  has  been  done  in  his  own  comparatively  small  field.  Facts  and  their 
classification  have  been  accumulating  at  such  a  rate,  that  nobody  seems  to 
have  leisure  to  recognize  the  relations  of  sub-groups  to  the  whole.  It  is  as 
if  both  in  Europe  and  America  individual  workers  were  bringing  their  stones 
to  one  great  building  and  piling  them  on  and  fastening  them  down  without 
regard  to  any  general  plan  or  to  their  individual  neighbor's  work  ;  only  where 
some  one  has  placed  a  great  corner-stone,  is  it  regarded,  and  the  building 
then  rises  on  this  firmer  foundation  more  rapidly  than  at  other  points,  till  it 
reaches  a  height  at  which  it  is  stopped  for  want  of  side  support.  Yet  this 
great  structure,  the  portions  of  which  are  beyond  the  ken  of  any  individual 
man,  possesses  a  symmetry  and  unity  of  its  own,  notwithstanding  its  hap- 
hazard mode  of  construction.  This  symmetry  and  unity  lies  in  scientific 
method.  The  smallest  group  of  facts,  if  properly  classified  and  logically 
dealt  with,  will  form  a  stone  which  has  its  proper  place  in  the  great  building 
of  knowledge,  wholly  independent  of  the  individual  workman  who  has  shaped 
it.  Even  when  two  men  work  unwittingly  at  the  same  stone  they  will  but 
modify  and  correct  each  other's  angles."  * 


•  of  Science,"  1892,  pp.  15,  16. 


76 

Any  one  who  realizes  how  completely  the  animus  of  scientists  is  materi- 
alistic, and  how  constantly  appears  the  sneer  against  all  that  is  called  God 
or  that  is  worshipped,  will  recognize  in  Dr.  Pearson's  great  building  a  modern 
tower  of  Babel,  and  in  the  disorder,  independence  and  cross-purposes  among 
scientists,  where  he  yet  thinks  there  is  symmetry,  will  recognize  a  most  for- 
midable confusion  of  tongues.  Already  it  is  quite  apparent,  to  one  who 
investigates  with  a  suspicion  of  the  fact,  that  wherever  one  branch  of  science 
has  upreared  its  hypothesis  against  the  Bible,  all  this  part  can  be  easily  ex- 
posed, simply  by  bringing  against  it  scientific  truths  which  have  been  worked  out 
in  some  other  departments.  And  this  is  simply  what  any  real  believer  in  the 
Bible,  as  God's  voice  to  man,  will  anticipate.  If  the  book  of  nature  is  but 
another  witness  from  the  same  God,  why  not  expect  that  a  more  complete 
investigation  of  natural  phenomena,  in  all  lines,  will  afford  the  data  for 
demolishing  the  immature  anti-Scriptural  deductions  in  any  particular  line? 
But  the  Christian  must  step  in  and  make  the  exposure  ;  he  cannot  hope  that 
those  who  have  built  up  lofty  personal  reputations  on  such  erroneous  deduc- 
tions will  take  pains  to  expose  themselves  !  And  let  no  Christian  deceive 
himself  in  thinking  that  modern  science  is  willing  to  make  a  permanent 
truce,  divide  up  the  territory,  and  leave  the  Christian  in  undisputed 
possession  of  a  small  section.  The  arrogant  egotism  of  the  materialistic 
scientist  is  well  set  forth  in  concrete  example  by  Dr.  Pearson,  in  the 
following  passage : 

"Science  stands  now  with  regard  to  the  problems  of  life  and  mind  in 
much  the  same  position  as  it  stood  with  regard  to  cosmical  problems  in  the 
seventeenth  century.  Then  the  system-mongers  were  the  theologians,  who 
declared  that  cosmical  problems  were  not  the  'legitimate  problems  of  science.' 
It  was  vain  for  Galilei  to  assert  that  the  theologians'  classification  of  facts 
was  hopelessly  inadequate.  ...  It  took  nearly  two  hundred  years  to 
convince  the  whole  theological  world  that  cosmical  problems  were  the  legiti- 
mate problems  of  science  and  science  alone. 

"  We  must  here  investigate  a  little  more  closely  what  the  man  of  science 
means  when  he  says:  'Here  I  am  ignorant'  ...  If  the  ignorance 
really  arises  from  the  inadequacy  of  the  scientific  method,  then  we  may  be 
quite  sure  that  no  other  method  whatsoever  will  reach  the  truth.  The  ignor- 
ance of  science  means  the  enforced  ignorance  of  mankind. 

"  If  I  have  put  the  case  of  science  at  all  correctly,  the  reader  will  have 
recognized  that  modern  science  does  much  more  than  demand  that  it  shall 
be  left  in  undisturbed  possession  of  what  the  theologian  and  metaphysician 
please  to  term  its  'legitimate  field.'  It  claims  that  the  whole  range  of 
phenomena,  mental  as  well  as  physical — the  entire  universe — is  its  field. 
It  asserts  that  the  scientific  method  is  the  sole  gateway  to  the  whole  region 
of  knowledge.  .  .  .  The  touchstone  of  science  is  the  universal  validity 
of  its  results  for  all  normally  constituted  and  duly  instructed  minds.  Because 
the  glitter  of  the  great  metaphysical  systems  becomes  dross  when  tried  by  this 


77 

touchstone,  we  are  compelled  to  classify  them  as  interesting  works  of  the 
imagination,  and  not  as  solid  contributions  to  human  knowledge."  * 

When  he  wrote  this  book  Dr.  Pearson  no  doubt  thought  it  perfectly  safe 
to  select  Newton's  law  of  gravitation  as  an  example  of  the  difference 
between  scientific  infallibility  and  these  "works  of  the  imagination." 
Indeed,  if  the  law  of  gravitation  could  not  be  trusted,  where  should  he  hope 
to  find  an  absolutely  impregnable  scientific  pedestal  from  which  to  look  down 
in  lofty  and  frosty  superiority  upon  the  religious  world  ?  But  time  has  its 
revenges  !  The  following  crushing  argument  of  Dr.  Pearson  is  an  example  : 
"The  philosopher  who  propounds  a  new  system,  or  the  prophet  who 
proclaims  a  new  religion,  may  be  absolutely  convinced  of  the  truth  of  his 
statement  ;  but  it  is  the  result  of  experience  from  time  immemorial  that  he 
cannot  demonstrate  that  truth  so  that  conviction  is  produced  in  the  mind  of 
every  rational  being.  .  .  .  On  the  other  hand,  a  formula  like  that  which 
Newton  propounded  for  the  motion' of  the  planetary  system,  will  be  accepted 
by  every  rational  mind  which  has  once  understood  its  terms  and  clearly 
analyzed  the  facts  which  it  resumes.  One  system  of  planetary  gravitation 
is  accepted  throughout  the  civilized  world,  but  more  than  a  dozen  distinct 
theological  systems  and  almost  as  many  philosophical  schools  hardly  suffice 
even  for  our  own  country.  This  is  sufficient  to  indicate  that  there  must  be 
some  wide  difference  between  theological  and  scientific  formulae."  f 

It  never  occurred  to  this  philosopher  that  in  a  very  few  years  after  thus 
delivering  himself,  even  orthodox  astronomers  and  mathematicians  would  be 
forced  to  look  askance  at  Newton's  law  !  And  mark  the  keen  logic  of  Dr. 
Pearson,  in  proving  that  gravitation  is  an  eternal  truth,  because  "accepted 
throughout  the  civilized  world  !"  He  thus  very  ably  shows  that  the  Ptolemaic 
system  was  also  an  undoubted  eternal  truth  during  all  the  period  when  it 
was  likewise  "accepted  throughout  the  civilized  world  !."  Hence  we  agree 
with  Dr.  Pearson  that  "  the  study  of  fallacy  in  concrete  examples  ought  to 
play  a  greater  part  in  our  educational  curriculum,"  and  respectfully  suggest 
that  his  own  volume  be  given  a  place  as  a  leading  text-book  ! 

If  in  so  brief  a  space  it  is  possible  to  show  the  fallibility  of  astronomical 
theory,  or  that  its  foundation  is  still  mere  hypothesis, — and  that  largely  by 
collating  the  confessions  of  astronomers  themselves, — it  can  scarcely  be 
doubted  that  the  same  exertions  would  make  an  even  more  gaping  breach 
in  the  anti-Scriptural  assumptions  found  in  any  other  branch  of  science. 

Geology  ranks  next  to  astronomy  in  the  appeal  made  to  it  against  the 
credibility  of  the  Bible.  We  have  already  seen,  incidentally,  that  the  great 
features  of  testimony  rendered  by  the  strata  of  the  earth's  crust  are  really 
striking  in  their  confirmation  of  the  Biblical  account  of  a  double  creation, 
instead  of  being  antagonistic  to  it.  And  the  moment  we  have  called  into 


*/^W.,pp.  24,25,29,30. 

t  Ibid.,  pp.  93-4,  with  foot-note. 


78 

question  astronomical  theory,  we  deliver  ourselves  from  imposition  at  the 
hands  of  materialistic  geologists,  who  often  seek  to  reinforce  by  an  appeal  to 
astronomy  their  unscientific  wresting  of  the  geological  facts,  to  serve  a  strong 
anti-Scriptural  bias. 

After  astronomy  and  geology,  Darwinian  evolution  is  the  scientific 
weapon  now  most  used  against  the  Bible.  But  he  who  challenges  the  truth 
of  all  the  anti-Scriptural  elements  in  astronomical  and  geological  science, 
throws  back  upon  the  evolutionist,  with  a  demand  for  their  proof,  the  two 
preliminary  assumptions  which  afford  the  only  plausible  arguments  ever 
marshalled  for  his  anti-naturalistic  postulate.  The  nebular  hypothesis  of 
astronomy  is  the  parent  of  the  absurd  dogma  of  evolution  ;  while  the  latter 
also  seemed  confirmed  by  geological  science,  in  the  general  indication  that 
vegetable  life  preceded  animal  life  in  the  prehistoric  ages,  while  lower  forms 
of  animal  life  preceded  the  advent  of  man.  But  the  nebular  hypothesis  of 
astronomy  is  itself  in  sad  need  of  rational  confirmation.  Again,  geological 
science  utterly  fails  the  evolutionist  in  the  striking  testimony,  in  agreement 
with  Scripture,  of  a  complete  break  in  continuity  between  the  geological 
ages  and  the  age-times  of  human  history.  In  seeking  arguments  within  the 
historic  period,  the  evolutionist  is  confronted  with  the  astonishing  fact  that 
every  one  of  the  fundamental  points  are  against  his  postulate,  (i)  Weis- 
mann's  maintenance  of  the  continuity  of  the  germ-plasm  from  generation 
to  generation,  so  that  the  seed-germ  propagated  by  the  first  parents  of  a 
species  is  exactly  reproduced  in  each  successive  fertilization  and  transmitted 
intact  to  the  end  of  the  line,  cuts  down  at  the  root  Darwin's  fundamental 
postulate  of  the  transmission  of  acquired  variations.  This  is  in  strict  accord 
with  the  account  of  Gen.  i.,  where  each  species  of  animal  is  recorded  as 
created  "after  his  kind,"  with  each  vegetable  species  similarly  created, 
"  whose  seed  was  in  itself,  after  his  kind"  (v.  12).  (2)  Nature  every  where 
sets  her  seal  to  this  by  the  well-known  facts,  that  when  species  of  flowers  or 
animals  are  crossed  the  hybrid  is  generally  without  power  to  propagate  its 
kind,  that  animals  carefully  cultivated  to  change  their  characteristics  tend 
rapidly  to  relapse,  and  that  cultivated  or  engrafted  vines  and  trees  give  seeds 
which  perpetuate  the  original  stock.  Thus  nature  abhors  a  confusion  of  spe- 
cies, as  she  is  said  to  abhor  a  vacuum.  Such  an  arraignment  of  an  hypothesis 
in  its  foundation  would  suffice  an  unbiased  truth-seeker — would  suffice  any- 
one except  a  "scientist"!  (3)  Vegetation,  animal  life  and  man,  instead  of 
development  toward  perfection,  show  a  marked  degeneration  in  size  from 
early  times  to  the  present,  man  having  suffered  similarly  in  the  matter  of 
longevity.  The  animals  known  to  man  are  pigmies  beside  the  prehistoric 
species  whose  skeletons  are  found.  (4)  The  history  of  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth — raised  up  in  God's  providence,  corrupting  themselves,  and  rotting 
away  or  cut  down  through  providential  judgments — demonstrates  that  the 
law  of  human  development  is  a  law  of  tendency  toward  degeneration,  and 
not  of  capacity  for  permanent  self -improvement.  The  nation  of  Israel, 
launched  on  its  course  even  with  the  great  advantage  of  special  light  from 


79 

God,  soon  brought  itself  under  condemnation.  Under  still  greater  favor  of 
God  the  dominion  passed  to  the  Gentile  nations  of  Christendom,  who  have 
been  thoroughly  tested  in  the  supreme  light  of  the  life  of  Christ,  and  with 
the  revelation  of  God's  love  and  goodness.  What  is  the  result  ?  National 
bloodthirstiness,  with  the  blight  of  infidelity  rapidly  casting  its  pall  over  the 
so-called  "Christian"  nations,  and  which  apparently  is  the  precursor  of  those 
judgments  of  outraged  Love  which  the  New  Testament  predicts — the  doom 
of  Christendom  foretold  as  to  occur  just  prior  to  the  advent  of  the  long- 
predicted  Messianic  kingdom  in  the  earth  ! 

Again,  just  as  evolutionists  have  built  upon  no  better  foundation  than  the 
assumption  of  the  nebular  hypothesis,  and  of  the  continuity  between  the 
geological  ages  and  the  age  of  man,  so  is  the  present  phase  of  "  higher  criti- 
cism" of  the  Bible  built  upon  nothing  better  than  the  assumption  of  Lamarck  - 
ian-Darwinian  evolution.  It  is  a  case  of  one  airy  superstructure  projected 
by  the  fertile  imagination  upon  another  !  The  dominant  style  of  criticism — 
of  the  De  Wette- Reuss-Vatke  -  Keunen -Welhausen  school,  with  Cheyne- 
Driver-Briggs  echoes,  and  numerous  other  variations,  in  England  and 
America — represents  the  third  somersault  of  "higher  criticism,"  and  its 
fourth  contradictory  phase  !  (And  I  take  no  account  in  this  remark  of  the 
perpetual  contradictions  in  detail,  among  the  numerous  infallibilities  of  each 
school.)  The  philosophy  of  the  present  school  is  very  simple  :  We  assume 
that  modern  science  has  shown  that  the  law  of  upward  development  under- 
lies human  history;  but  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  perversely  contradict  this 
dogma,  claiming  that  Israel  started  with  a  perfect  law  and  departed  from  it, 
plunging  into  idolatry,  instead  of  starting  as  nomad  idolaters  and  evolving 
the  Mosaic  law  out  of  their  inner  consciousness.  The  Hebrew  Scriptures 
thus  teach  the  heresy  of  degeneration,  in  place  of  evolution  ;  therefore  the 
testimony  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  is  incredible  on  its  face,  and  the  scienti- 
fic way  to  arrive  at  the  truth  is  to  pronounce  the  records  "pious  frauds," 
always  believing  the  opposite  of  what  is  written  !  Q.  E.  D.  ! 

My  reply  to  each  of  these  curious  theologians  is  as  follows  :  My  learned 
friend,  you  are  too  superstitious,  and  have  been  led  away  by  your  simplicity 
and  childish  faith  in  scientific  infallibility  !  Are  you  so  unskilled  in  human 
nature  as  to  believe  all  the  scientists  tell  you  ?  Pray,  do  not  assume  so 
much,  but  try  and  establish  your  fundamental  premise.  First  prove  the 
doctrine  of  evolution,  since  no  evolutionist  has  been  able  to  demonstrate  it 
for  you  ;  prove  your  assumption  of  geological  continuity,  since  no  geologist 
is  able  to  do  so  ;  try  and  establish  the  tenets  of  astronomy,  since  the  astron- 
omers are  in  such  sore  need  of  assistance,  instead  of  being  able  to  lay  a 
foundation  for  anyone  else  ;  and  when  you  have  done  this,  then  we  will  be 
ready  to  look  at  the  Scriptures  on  the  ground  of  your  premise,  to  see  whether 
they  confirm  it,  or  expose  it  and  you  ! 

When  that  learned  critic,  Dr.  Sanday,  assures  me  from  his  printed  page 
that  the  word  of  Christ  is  not  sufficient  authority  for  a  Christian,  since  it  is 
plain  our  Saviour  was  not  always  accurate,  He  having  been  guilty  of  "imper- 


80 

feet  science"  in  saying  that  God  "  maketh  the  sun  to  rise,"  I  must  be 
permitted  to  reply  :  My  dear  Doctor,  perhaps  I  should  not  blame  you  for 
taking  this  little  question  about  the  sun  for  granted,  since  all  the  world  does 
so  ;  yet  since  you  profess  to  believe  that  the  One  you  criticise  for  '  imperfect 
science'  is  and  then  was  the  God  who  had  made  the  sun  and  whose  word 
was  then  maintaining  its  operations,  before  positively  asserting  that  He  made 
a  mistake  in  this  case,  even  in  the  way  of  accommodation  or  condescen- 
sion [!],  ought  you  not  to  have  abandoned  theology  for  a  few  years  and  have 
first  settled,  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt,  this  little  question  about  the 
sun  and  the  earth,  which  astronomers  have  for  so  many  generations  quarreled 
over?  Just  conceive  for  a  moment  as  possible,  what  you  may  consider  but 
the  one  chance  out  of  ten  million,  that  the  sun  does  actually  rise  after  all ; 
and  suppose  that  the  day  has  arrived  when  you  are  standing  before  the  throne 
of  Immanuel  Himself,  and  that  you  are  reminded  of  these  words,  and  are 
shown  all  the  fruit  they  hare  produced  in  the  world,  in  aiding  and  abetting 
and  engendering  unbelief  in  God's  people — and  in  lost  souls,  some  of  whom 
had  your  help  in  their  determination  to  go  down  to  death  without  a  Saviour  ! 

It  is  on  such  grounds  as  these,  my  dear  General,  that  I  commend  the 
publication  of  the  translation  of  the  lecture  of  Dr.  Schoepffer.  If  it  enables 
even  a  single  soul  to  throw  off  the  shackles  of  mere  superstitious  reverence 
for  scientific  dogma,  and  of  blind  subserviency  to  a  priestcraft  which  abuses 
its  authority  as  shamelessly  as  does  that  which  dons  the  religious  frock,  the 
consequence  for  good  may  be  incalculable.  What  I  now  esteem  as  the  most 
precious  truth,  I  once  spurned  under  the  inspiration  of  scientific  negation  ; 
and,  having  been  delivered  from  the  thralldom  of  the  latter,  I  consider  my- 
self in  this  like  some  poor  bird  which  has  been  released  from  the  net  of  the 
fowler,  and  permitted  to  soar  into  the  blue  depths  of  the  heavens  ! 

Very  truly,  FRANK  ALLABEN. 

NEW  YORK,   December  5,  1899. 


While  I  fully  endorse  all  the  scientific  views,  and  the  deduc- 
tions therefrom,  expressed  in  the  foregoing  Supplement,  yet  it 
also  contains  what  I  must  term  theological  abstractions  to  which 
I  cannot  subscribe.  This  remark  is  made  because — while  I  re- 
spect, honor  aud  esteem  the  author,  and  believe  him  to  be  the 
most  conscientious  man  in  religious  matters  I  have  ever  met — 
we  do  not  always  coincide.  In  such  cases  I  am  willing  to  con- 
cede that  his  judgment  is  thoroughly  honest;  but  I  am  not  pre- 
pared, nor  do  I  dare,  to  agree  with  him.  As  to  his  scientific 
attainments,  they  are  unusual ;  and  in  most  matters  we  do  agree, 
but  not  in  all.  Therefore,  as  I  read  the  proofs,  this  note  is  due 
to  my  feelings  of  responsibility. 

ANCHOR  (J.  W.  DE  P.) 


employ  them  to  the  best  advantage.  He  computed  the  first  table  of  refractions, 
and  if  it  extended  only  to  45°,  the  reason  was,  that  the  effects  of  refraction,  at  a 
higher  altitude,  were  altogether  insensible  to  his  instruments.  His  solar  tables 
were  brought  to  so  great  a  degree  of  exactness,  that  he  affirms  he  could  never 
detect  an  error  in  them  exceeding  a  quarter  of  a  minute  ;  but  there  is  reason  to 
suspect  some  exaggeration  in  this  statement,  particularly  as  Cassini,  a  century 
after,  with  much  better  means,  could  scarcely  answer  for  errors  of  a  whole  min- 
ute. He  (Tycho  Brahe)  contributed  greatly  to  the  improvement  of  the  lunar 
tables,  and  detected  a  considerable  inequality  in  the  moon's  motion  in  longitude, 
to  which  he  gave  the  name  of  the  Variation,  by  which  it  has  ever  since  been  dis- 
tinguished. He  also  discovered  an  equation  in  latitude  similar  to  the  evection 
which  had  been  observed  by  Hipparchus,  and  fixed  its  amount  with  great  accu- 
racy. He  remarked  the  fourth  inequality  of  the  moon  in  longitude,  although  he 
failed  in  his  attempt  to  ascertain  its  amount,  or  assign  its  law.  He  represented 
the  inequalities  of  the  motions  of  the  nodes,  and  in  the  inclination  of  the  lunar 
orbit,  by  the  motion  of  the  pole  of  that  orbit  in  a  small  circle  round  the  pole  of 
the  ecliptic.  He  demonstrated  that  the  region  of  the  comets  is  far  beyond  the 
orbit  of  the  moon,  and  determined  the  relative  and  absolute  positions  of  777  fixed 
stars  with  scrupulous  exactness,  which  gave  his  catalogue  an  immense  superi- 
ority over  those  of  Hipparchus  and  •Vlugh  Begh  ;  and  he  left  to  his  successors  a 
regular  series  of  observations  of  the  planets,  amass'ed  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing the  truth  of  his,  own  system,  but  of  which  Kepler  made  a  better  [?]  use  by 
employing  them  to  establish  the  system  of  Copernicus.  .  .  .  The  great  mass 
of  accurate  observations  accumulated  by  Tycho  furnished  the  materials  out  of 
which  his  disciple  Kepler  may.be  said  to  have  constructed  the  edifice  of  the 
universe."  * 

In  the  same  treatise,  Professor  Proctor— himself  one  of  the  most  zealous  of 
the  disciples  of  Copernicus,  Kepler  and  Newton— furnishes  us  with  his  remarkable 
admission  that  Tycho  Brake's  hypothesis  in  explanation  of  the  movements  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  is  quite  as  rational  as  the  Copernican  system,  in  its  capacity  to 
explain  all  the  observed  phenomena.  Mr.  Allaben  has  cited  this  in  part  :  it  is 
here  given  more  in  detail.  Professor  Proctor's  remarks  on  the  subject,  with  the 
accompanying  diagram,  illustrating  the  system  of  Tycho  Brahe,  are  here  repro- 
duced ("  Encyclopedia  Britannica,"  Ninth  Edition,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  777-8) : 

"Far  more  reasonable  [than  the  Ptolemaic  system]  was  the  ancient  Egyptian 
system,  by  some  described  as  identical  with,  but  in  any  case  closely  resembling 
in  essentials,  the  system  of  Tycho  Brahe,  shown  in  Fig.  19  [See  illustration]. 


Fig.  19. — (Tychonian  System)  referred  to  by  Prof.  Proctor. 


*  "Shortly  before  his  death  he  had  been  joined  by  Kepler,  who  owes  his  fame 
to  the  lesson 'of  careful  observation  and  cautious  inference  impressed  on  him  by 
Tvcho  "  —  Article,  "Tycho  Brahe,''  "Encyclopedia  Britannica,"  Ninth  Edition, 
Vol.  IV.,  p.  200. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


3  c 
1957 


el- 

its 
he 

id, 
Form  L9-42m-8,'49(B5573)444 

aDie  symmetry  oi  tne  universe,  an  narmomous  disposition  ot  the  orbits.  For  who 
could  assign  to  the  lamp  of  this  beautiful  temple  a  better  position  than  the  cen- 
tre, whence  alone  it  can  illuminate  all  parts  at  once?  Here  the  sun,  as  from  a 
kingly  throne,  sways  the  family  of  orbs  that  circle  around  him  ! '  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  point  out  that  the  arrangement  suggested  by  Copernicus  explains 
the  motions  of  the  sun  and  rtioon  as  readily  as  the  [Tychonic]  system  which 
presents  both  these  bodies  as  moving  around  the  earth." 

When  a  modern  astronomer,  like  the  late  Professor  Proctor,  pleads  for  the 
Copernican  system  on  the  ground  that  it  is  the  equal  of  the  Tychonic  system,  in 
capacity  to  explain  observed  phenomena,  it  is  plain  that  the  Tychonic  system  is 
worthy  of  profound  respect,  and  that  any  plea  in  its  favor  deserves  serious  atten- 
tion from  unbiased  minds.  ANCHOR  (J.  W.  de  P.) 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 
LOS  ANGELES 


